Author Topic: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2  (Read 333524 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Nigerius Rex

  • Posts: 478
  • Gender: Male
  • Thats Mr. Doctor Professor Patrick
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #840 on: June 28, 2010, 09:22:31 PM »
No, you are confusing two things. Glucose is used by the body as a fuel source for some things, but glucose and fructose are both simple sugars and both cause the same adverse affects in the body when consumed in more than small quantities.

https://www.webmd.com/heart/metabolic-syndrome/news/20090421/fresh-take-on-fructose-vs-glucose?page=2

Quote
Havel acknowledges that the study does little to answer the question of whether the body processes high-fructose corn syrup differently from table sugar or other sweeteners.

Cardiologist James Rippe, MD, who is a consultant for the Corn Refiners Association, says there is no credible scientific evidence that high-fructose corn syrup is a bigger cause of obesity or chronic disease than any of the other sugars used in processed foods.

Quote
NR, I'm just curious, are you under the impression that all vegetarians and vegans are fat with diabetes and heart problems? It seems you say meat is the best thing to eat and everything else is bad for you.

Not at all. Meat is the best diet for humans, but a vegetarian or vegan diet can work.

Offline Adami

  • Moderator of awesomeness
  • *
  • Posts: 36093
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #841 on: June 28, 2010, 09:23:29 PM »
So what about someone who has never eaten meat in their entire lives, eats plenty of wheats and fruits and is still perfectly healthy? Not overweight, no high blood pressure, no diabetes?
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline Nigerius Rex

  • Posts: 478
  • Gender: Male
  • Thats Mr. Doctor Professor Patrick
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #842 on: June 28, 2010, 09:25:37 PM »
More power to em.

I don't know of any known civilizations who purposefully avoided meat and embraced grains and vegetation who have been held up as shining examples of success. I know that it can work as I said, but that meat naturally provides the vitamins and nutrition that all parts of the human body need with little modification whereas you need to take extra steps when fashioning a vegetarian or vegan diet to meet your dietary requirements.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2010, 09:30:58 PM by Nigerius Rex »

Offline Adami

  • Moderator of awesomeness
  • *
  • Posts: 36093
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #843 on: June 28, 2010, 09:30:18 PM »
But are you claiming that a majority of vegetarians/vegans are obese, unhealthy or have heart problems and diabetes? Or that most meat eaters are very healthy? If not, then I'm not sure how your case holds up.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline Nigerius Rex

  • Posts: 478
  • Gender: Male
  • Thats Mr. Doctor Professor Patrick
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #844 on: June 28, 2010, 09:31:34 PM »
No, I am claiming that meats and animal fat are healthy and carbohydrates are not.

Offline Adami

  • Moderator of awesomeness
  • *
  • Posts: 36093
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #845 on: June 28, 2010, 09:32:26 PM »
No, I am claiming that meat is healthy and carbohydrates are not.

But if something is healthy, wouldn't the majority of people who avoid it be unhealthy while the majority of the people who indulge in it be healthier?
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline Nigerius Rex

  • Posts: 478
  • Gender: Male
  • Thats Mr. Doctor Professor Patrick
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #846 on: June 28, 2010, 09:34:25 PM »
We know that groups who indulge in meat, avoid sugars, and eat grains in small amounts are extremely healthy with rare incidence of cardiovascular disease and diabetes.


Offline Adami

  • Moderator of awesomeness
  • *
  • Posts: 36093
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #847 on: June 28, 2010, 09:37:58 PM »
But is that WHY they're healthy? Cause someone people who indulge in meat more than other things are very unhealthy. And some people who avoid meats are very healthy. Is it just a correlation you're latching on to? Or is your last name atkins?
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline Nigerius Rex

  • Posts: 478
  • Gender: Male
  • Thats Mr. Doctor Professor Patrick
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #848 on: June 28, 2010, 09:45:11 PM »
What group/groups are you pointing to that back up these statements?

In observed tribal groups animal fat consumption was high, sugar consumption was low, grain consumption was low and intense exercise was sporadic. In dietary studies high fat low carbohydrate diets have shown to increase health markers and promote weight loss.

Meanwhile in a nation that promotes low consumption of meat and high consumptions of grains and sugar the entire nation is fat and diabetic.

Offline Adami

  • Moderator of awesomeness
  • *
  • Posts: 36093
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #849 on: June 28, 2010, 09:48:09 PM »
Tribal groups who probably didn't sit around on the computer all day.

Like I said, are you just latching onto a correlation? I mean, AIDS became more rampant around the same time Metallica started. One would be foolish to think it was causation.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline Nigerius Rex

  • Posts: 478
  • Gender: Male
  • Thats Mr. Doctor Professor Patrick
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #850 on: June 28, 2010, 09:51:53 PM »
And like I said, in any environment where diets have been observed or studied over long periods of time animal fat consumption has proven to be healthier than carbohydrate consumption and also prevent the development of many diseases we commonly associate with obesity and fat.


Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #851 on: June 28, 2010, 10:58:29 PM »

I don't know of any known civilizations who purposefully avoided meat and embraced grains and vegetation who have been held up as shining examples of success.

India?

Also, from the same webct article you linked to:

Quote
New research shows big differences in how the sugars fructose and glucose are metabolized by the body
...
Both groups gained weight during the 10-week study, but the fructose group gained more of the dangerous belly fat that has been linked to a higher risk for heart attack and stroke
...
Both the groups gained weight during the trial, but imaging studies revealed that most of the added fat in the fructose group occurred in the belly, while most of the fat gained by the glucose group was subcutaneous (under the skin).

Belly fat, but not subcutaneous fat, has been linked to an increased risk for heart disease and diabetes.

The fructose group had higher total cholesterol and LDL "bad" cholesterol, plus greater insulin resistance, which are consistent with metabolic syndrome, while the glucose group did not.

Did you just ignore that part? Like I said, fructose is correlated with more insulin resistance, more bad cholesterol, and general worse health effects than glucose.

It's rather hilarious to be told I'm confusing two things, then be linked an article which says the exact same thing I said...


Offline Nigerius Rex

  • Posts: 478
  • Gender: Male
  • Thats Mr. Doctor Professor Patrick
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #852 on: June 28, 2010, 11:23:23 PM »
Quote
India?

https://hindu.com/2007/10/12/stories/2007101260940600.htm

Quote
It's rather hilarious to be told I'm confusing two things, then be linked an article which says the exact same thing I said...

Those little tidbits are irrelevant. The study did not conclusively show that hfcs is any worse for you than glucose. All it did was show that glucose creates more subcutaneous fat and less visceral which is still bad for you, and suggest that hfcs does more than glucose without providing the background data to know whether or not it was because of the fructose. Even if it were true, the higher levels that hfcs may elevate blood sugar and encourage insulin resistance would only be a small amount higher than that of glucose. So either way, if you eat too much sugar you will gain weight and eventually develop diabetes and its associated diseases. It is not solely the fructose or hfcs that causes the problems associated with the food pyramid.

Quote
Tschop says whether the sweetener is high-fructose corn syrup or something else, it is clear that Americans are eating too much sugar.

Sugar comes from carbohydrates and we eat too many.

https://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/03/25/corn.syrup.sugar/index.html

Quote
"The debate about which one is better for you is a false debate, because neither of them is good for you," says Elizabeth Abbott, author of the forthcoming "Sugar: A Bittersweet History."

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #853 on: June 29, 2010, 12:03:52 AM »
Quote
India?

https://hindu.com/2007/10/12/stories/2007101260940600.htm

What exactly is that supposed to show? India and it's culture go back for millenia, and have had a similar diet for a lot of that time period - why, then, is this a new rising epidemic? It couldn't possibly be because of lifestyle? After all, India is modernizing, it's workforce is becoming increasingly urban and sedentary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity_in_India

Quote
India is following a trend of other developing countries that are steadily becoming more obese. Unhealthy, processed food has become much more accessible following India's continued integration in global food markets

So yes, carbohydrate are the problem, but the ones you find in processed foods.

Furthermore, India and America have similiar obesity rates, yet most Indian's never eat meat. If what you are saying is true, shouldn't we see much more obese Indians than American's? After all, according to you, we eat more meat, therefore we eat healthier. American's eat more meat than anyone else in the world.

Quote
It's rather hilarious to be told I'm confusing two things, then be linked an article which says the exact same thing I said...

Quote
Those little tidbits are irrelevant. The study did not conclusively show that hfcs is any worse for you than glucose. All it did was show that glucose creates more subcutaneous fat and less visceral which is still bad for you, and suggest that hfcs does more than glucose without providing the background data to know whether or not it was because of the fructose. Even if it were true, the higher levels that hfcs may elevate blood sugar and encourage insulin resistance would only be a small amount higher than that of glucose. So either way, if you eat too much sugar you will gain weight and eventually develop diabetes and its associated diseases. It is not solely the fructose or hfcs that causes the problems associated with the food pyramid.

I said fructose causes increased insulin resistance. It does. I said fructose causes increased bad cholesterol. It does. I said different carbohydrates affect the body differently. They do. No where did I ever say that it's solely the fructose. I said as compared to glucose. Importantly, the increased presence of HFCS in every sort of processed food also means an increase in the presence of glucose. My argument is against processed sugars / added sweeteners.

Besides, are you going to imply that Americans actually follow the food pyramids guidelines? One huge fault of your entire argument so far is that American's don't really eat according to the food pyramid / guidelines by the FDA. American's don't generally get their carbohydrates from fruits, vegetables and grains, they get them from manufactured and processed sugars which are added to foods, or drink it up in soda. I'm also willing to bet they go beyond the daily recommended value.

Another thing, how is that some diabetics manage their diabetes by going on vegetarian diets? Also:

Higher consumption of nuts (29) and whole grains (30) has been associated with lower rates of diabetes. In a large prospective study, fruit and vegetable intake was found to be inversely associated with the incidence of diabetes, particularly among women (31). Men and women who reported seldom or never eating fruit or green leafy vegetables had higher mean HbA1C levels than those who had more frequent consumption (32). An increased consumption of fruit and vegetables appears to contribute to the prevention of diabetes.

« Last Edit: June 29, 2010, 12:12:08 AM by Scheavo »

Offline ogrejedi

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 137
  • Gender: Male
  • Run, run or you'll be well-done!
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #854 on: June 29, 2010, 12:23:17 AM »
Quote
Havel acknowledges that the study does little to answer the question of whether the body processes high-fructose corn syrup differently from table sugar or other sweeteners.

Cardiologist James Rippe, MD, who is a consultant for the Corn Refiners Association, says there is no credible scientific evidence that high-fructose corn syrup is a bigger cause of obesity or chronic disease than any of the other sugars used in processed foods.

Well, I'm sold. If we can't trust doctors on the corn industry's payroll to give us an unbiased opinion of corn, whom can we trust?
"Who are these swine? These flag-sucking half-wits who get fleeced and fooled by stupid little rich kids like George Bush? They are the same ones who wanted to have Muhammad Ali locked up for refusing to kill gooks. They speak for all that is cruel and stupid and vicious in the American character. They are the racists and hate mongers among us; they are the Ku Klux Klan. I piss down the throats of these Nazis. And I am too old to worry about whether they like it or not. Fuck them."

Offline Nigerius Rex

  • Posts: 478
  • Gender: Male
  • Thats Mr. Doctor Professor Patrick
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #855 on: June 29, 2010, 12:56:47 AM »
Quote
So yes, carbohydrate are the problem, but the ones you find in processed foods.

https://www.healthy-eating-politics.com/american-diabetes-association.html

Quote
On their website, the American Diabetes Association directs diabetics to eat between 45-60 grams of carbohydrates at each meal. Assuming a person eats three meals a day, this advice works out to telling diabetics to eat a minimum of 135 grams to a maximum of 180 grams of carbohydrates per day. Now, 180 grams of carbohydrates works out to 720 calories (1 gram of carb=4 calories). In a daily diet of 2000 calories, eating the minimum recommended carbs would set the daily percentage of carbs at 27% (540/2000) and the maximum carbs would be 36% (720/2000).

Quote
On their website, the American Diabetes Association nutritionist recommends the following guidelines for diabetics in designing a meal. She says to imagine a dinner plate, and keep carbs (brown rice, whole wheat pasta and 100% whole wheat bread) to no more than 1/4 of the plate at any meal. The non-starchy vegetables should fill 1/2 the plate. For the last quarter of the plate, add about 3 ounces of lean meat, chicken, or fish. She also says that a piece of fresh fruit or 1/2 cup of fruit salad for dessert, or even a "light" yogurt can be added for dessert. She recommends cooking with vegetable oils and cutting back on saturated fat.

If we analyze a typical meal using these guidelines, this is what we find:

Half of a 10.5 inch dinner plate works out to 35 square inches of space to fill with a non starchy vegetable. One can easily fit 2 cups of cooked yellow squash there – that’s about 18 grams of carb.
In one quarter of the plate, there is about 15 square inches to fill. That could hold a cup of brown rice easily. That’s about 45 carbs.
The last quarter plate would hold 3 oz of lean meat. That’s about 18 grams of protein.
For dessert, a piece of fresh fruit – if we went with a medium orange, that’s another 15 grams of carb.
Finally, the ADA says you can cook your veggies and protein in vegetable oil. (Forget for the moment that vegetable oils are polyunsaturated, meaning the chemical structure is volatile and easily oxidizes in the presence of heat. This introduces cancer causing free radicals into your food.) Sautéing 2 cups of squash would take about 1 T of canola oil. That’s about 14 grams of fat, and 125 calories.

What is so difficult to understand about breaks down into sugar? Just because you get the sugar from a complex nutritionally dense food does not negate the amount of sugar consumed. All carbohydrates by definition eventually break down into sugar.

Quote
Furthermore, India and America have similiar obesity rates, yet most Indian's never eat meat. If what you are saying is true, shouldn't we see much more obese Indians than American's? After all, according to you, we eat more meat, therefore we eat healthier. American's eat more meat than anyone else in the world.

As you know there are other markers to health than just weight. Eating no meat/less meat does not correspond with an increase in weight and a drop in overall health or well being. The point is, it has been proven that cultures who eat predominantly animal fat and few grains are healthier and have less incidence of disease than cultures that eat many grains and sugars and little/no meat. On a further note, eating meat does not mean you will be healthy in spite of any other factors. If you eat a lot of meat and a lot of sugar like an average american does at say Mcdonalds in a quarter pounder meal, how healthy do you think the population will be? You also confuse two separate arguments. A healthy diet of grains and meat can coexist as you point out India did in the past and as documentaries like fathead and studies like those done by Dr. Uffe Ravnskov prove. The key is portions.

The problem however is that an Indian diet does not consist solely of grains and leaves and does not adhere to a common vegetarian or vegan diet. Take a look at the indian diet on that page if you will. It contains a lot of vegetables, a lot of protein from various sources such as meat and legumes, and some grains. Not predominantly grains as you first thought.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_cuisine#Eating_Habits
https://www.foodbycountry.com/Germany-to-Japan/India.html

Quote
Besides, are you going to imply that Americans actually follow the food pyramids guidelines? One huge fault of your entire argument so far is that American's don't really eat according to the food pyramid / guidelines by the FDA. American's don't generally get their carbohydrates from fruits, vegetables and grains, they get them from manufactured and processed sugars which are added to foods, or drink it up in soda. I'm also willing to bet they go beyond the daily recommended value.

Read that article above. Even at base recommendation from the FDA or ADA, Americans will consume too many carbohydrates even from all natural sources such as fruits and vegetables.

Quote
Well, I'm sold. If we can't trust doctors on the corn industry's payroll to give us an unbiased opinion of corn, whom can we trust?

I understand the criticism, but its bullshit. Is what the man saying wrong? Is a study funded by someone you agree with any more reliable? Is the work of anyone paid to do a specific job any less reliable?
« Last Edit: June 29, 2010, 03:43:09 AM by Nigerius Rex »

Offline William Wallace

  • Posts: 2791
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #856 on: June 29, 2010, 11:04:09 AM »
Quote
Havel acknowledges that the study does little to answer the question of whether the body processes high-fructose corn syrup differently from table sugar or other sweeteners.

Cardiologist James Rippe, MD, who is a consultant for the Corn Refiners Association, says there is no credible scientific evidence that high-fructose corn syrup is a bigger cause of obesity or chronic disease than any of the other sugars used in processed foods.

Well, I'm sold. If we can't trust doctors on the corn industry's payroll to give us an unbiased opinion of corn, whom can we trust?
It's not just the corn refiner's consultant who knows the HFCS is no worse than sugar. Even the food cops know there's no difference between them. Barry Popkin, who started the craze over HFCS, retracted the claims he made about it in 2004. Even CSPI, a vegetarian group and no friend to the food industry, says the hype over HFCS is false.

Offline Super Dude

  • Hero of Prog
  • DTF.com Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16265
  • Gender: Male
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #857 on: June 29, 2010, 12:37:30 PM »
It's simple: if it wasn't available in food markets before the turn of the previous century, it's probably not good for you.
Quote from: bosk1
As frequently happens, Super Dude nailed it.
:superdude:

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #858 on: June 29, 2010, 11:22:21 PM »
Quote
So yes, carbohydrate are the problem, but the ones you find in processed foods.

https://www.healthy-eating-politics.com/american-diabetes-association.html

Quote
On their website, the American Diabetes Association directs diabetics to eat between 45-60 grams of carbohydrates at each meal. Assuming a person eats three meals a day, this advice works out to telling diabetics to eat a minimum of 135 grams to a maximum of 180 grams of carbohydrates per day. Now, 180 grams of carbohydrates works out to 720 calories (1 gram of carb=4 calories). In a daily diet of 2000 calories, eating the minimum recommended carbs would set the daily percentage of carbs at 27% (540/2000) and the maximum carbs would be 36% (720/2000).

Quote
On their website, the American Diabetes Association nutritionist recommends the following guidelines for diabetics in designing a meal. She says to imagine a dinner plate, and keep carbs (brown rice, whole wheat pasta and 100% whole wheat bread) to no more than 1/4 of the plate at any meal. The non-starchy vegetables should fill 1/2 the plate. For the last quarter of the plate, add about 3 ounces of lean meat, chicken, or fish. She also says that a piece of fresh fruit or 1/2 cup of fruit salad for dessert, or even a "light" yogurt can be added for dessert. She recommends cooking with vegetable oils and cutting back on saturated fat.

If we analyze a typical meal using these guidelines, this is what we find:

Half of a 10.5 inch dinner plate works out to 35 square inches of space to fill with a non starchy vegetable. One can easily fit 2 cups of cooked yellow squash there – that’s about 18 grams of carb.
In one quarter of the plate, there is about 15 square inches to fill. That could hold a cup of brown rice easily. That’s about 45 carbs.
The last quarter plate would hold 3 oz of lean meat. That’s about 18 grams of protein.
For dessert, a piece of fresh fruit – if we went with a medium orange, that’s another 15 grams of carb.
Finally, the ADA says you can cook your veggies and protein in vegetable oil. (Forget for the moment that vegetable oils are polyunsaturated, meaning the chemical structure is volatile and easily oxidizes in the presence of heat. This introduces cancer causing free radicals into your food.) Sautéing 2 cups of squash would take about 1 T of canola oil. That’s about 14 grams of fat, and 125 calories.

What is so difficult to understand about breaks down into sugar? Just because you get the sugar from a complex nutritionally dense food does not negate the amount of sugar consumed. All carbohydrates by definition eventually break down into sugar.

It does matter how you get the food. Here's why: if you get the carbohydrates from natural foods, i.e. grains, there is going to be a natural limit to the abundance of the carbohydrates. This isn't true for processed foods. Sugar is found in shit it just should not be found in, and if you don't believe me, just go to the grocery store and look. You'll find HFCS and sugar in a variety of items which would be surprising to most people.

*edit*

That is, you can only eat so much pasta before you're full.

Quote
Furthermore, India and America have similiar obesity rates, yet most Indian's never eat meat. If what you are saying is true, shouldn't we see much more obese Indians than American's? After all, according to you, we eat more meat, therefore we eat healthier. American's eat more meat than anyone else in the world.

As you know there are other markers to health than just weight. Eating no meat/less meat does not correspond with an increase in weight and a drop in overall health or well being. The point is, it has been proven that cultures who eat predominantly animal fat and few grains are healthier and have less incidence of disease than cultures that eat many grains and sugars and little/no meat. On a further note, eating meat does not mean you will be healthy in spite of any other factors. If you eat a lot of meat and a lot of sugar like an average american does at say Mcdonalds in a quarter pounder meal, how healthy do you think the population will be? You also confuse two separate arguments. A healthy diet of grains and meat can coexist as you point out India did in the past and as documentaries like fathead and studies like those done by Dr. Uffe Ravnskov prove. The key is portions.

The problem however is that an Indian diet does not consist solely of grains and leaves and does not adhere to a common vegetarian or vegan diet. Take a look at the indian diet on that page if you will. It contains a lot of vegetables, a lot of protein from various sources such as meat and legumes, and some grains. Not predominantly grains as you first thought.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_cuisine#Eating_Habits
https://www.foodbycountry.com/Germany-to-Japan/India.html
[/quote]

I'm sorry if I implied that they eat solely grains, I'm not sure I did, but so they still eat a lot of carbohydrates. Many legumes still have carbohydrates, and legumes are eaten with grains to be nutritionally valid. Vegetables themselves also contain a lot of carbohydrates.

By the way, nice job of pointing out the importance of other factors when it comes to health affects whilst ignoring the consequences. Carbohydrates are broken down into sugar for use as energy by the body, which get's stored as fat if that energy is not used. If Americans were more active, the consumption of carbohydrates would be less negative as their presence in the body woudln't be so long-lasting.

Quote
Quote
Besides, are you going to imply that Americans actually follow the food pyramids guidelines? One huge fault of your entire argument so far is that American's don't really eat according to the food pyramid / guidelines by the FDA. American's don't generally get their carbohydrates from fruits, vegetables and grains, they get them from manufactured and processed sugars which are added to foods, or drink it up in soda. I'm also willing to bet they go beyond the daily recommended value.

Read that article above. Even at base recommendation from the FDA or ADA, Americans will consume too many carbohydrates even from all natural sources such as fruits and vegetables.

Perhaps they would consume too many carbohydrates, but would we b e seeing the obesity and diabetic epidemic we are seeing?
« Last Edit: June 30, 2010, 11:05:46 AM by Scheavo »

Offline MetalMike06

  • DT.net Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1549
  • Gender: Male
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #859 on: July 01, 2010, 09:34:53 PM »
A pretty interesting article on Reagan's foreign policy and the myths surrounding it today:

https://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/06/07/think_again_ronald_reagan?page=full

Quote
Sure, Reagan spent boatloads -- some $2.8 trillion all told -- on the military. And yes, he funneled money and guns to anti-communist rebels like the Nicaraguan Contras and Afghan mujahideen, while lecturing Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down that wall. But on the ultimate test of hawkdom -- the willingness to send U.S. troops into harm's way -- Reagan was no bird of prey. He launched exactly one land war, against Grenada, whose army totaled 600 men. It lasted two days. And his only air war -- the 1986 bombing of Libya -- was even briefer. Compare that with George H.W. Bush, who launched two midsized ground operations, in Panama (1989) and Somalia (1992), and one large war in the Persian Gulf (1991). Or with Bill Clinton, who launched three air campaigns -- in Bosnia (1995), Iraq (1998), and Kosovo (1999) -- each of which dwarfed Reagan's Libya bombing in duration and intensity. Do I even need to mention George W. Bush?
Quote
As early as 1982, after Reagan skirmished with Israel, declined to send U.S. troops to Central America, and refused to cut off Western loans to communist Poland, Commentary's Norman Podhoretz declared that neoconservatives were "sinking into a state of near political despair." New York Times columnist William Safire announced that "if Ronald Reagan fails to awake to the hard-liners' anger at his betrayal, he will discover that he has lost his bedrock constituency." By 1984, after Reagan withdrew troops from their peacekeeping mission in Lebanon, Podhoretz moaned that "in the use of military power, Mr. Reagan was much more restrained" than his right-wing supporters had hoped.

But that was nothing compared with the howls of outrage that accompanied Reagan's dovish turn toward the Soviet Union. In 1986, when Reagan would not cancel his second summit with Gorbachev over Moscow's imprisonment of an American journalist, Podhoretz accused him of having "shamed himself and the country" in his "craven eagerness" to give away the nuclear store. Washington Post columnist George Will said the administration had crumpled "like a punctured balloon." When Reagan signed the INF Treaty, most Republicans vying to succeed him came out in opposition. Grassroots conservative leaders established the Anti-Appeasement Alliance to oppose ratification and ran newspaper advertisements comparing Gorbachev to Hitler and Reagan to Neville Chamberlain. Reagan, wailed Will, is "elevating wishful thinking to the status of political philosophy."

Offline Nigerius Rex

  • Posts: 478
  • Gender: Male
  • Thats Mr. Doctor Professor Patrick
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #860 on: July 03, 2010, 06:16:50 AM »
Apologies for taking so long to respond, took a bit of a mini break from p/r for a couple of days.

Quote
It does matter how you get the food. Here's why: if you get the carbohydrates from natural foods, i.e. grains, there is going to be a natural limit to the abundance of the carbohydrates. This isn't true for processed foods. Sugar is found in shit it just should not be found in, and if you don't believe me, just go to the grocery store and look. You'll find HFCS and sugar in a variety of items which would be surprising to most people.

I think you very seriously underestimate the amount of carbohydrates in grains and other unprocessed sources of carbohydrates and also the impact they have on the body. To elaborate on that as an example if you were to follow the food pyramids example of a healthy diet and still eat only unprocessed whole grains you would still have problems with blood glucose spikes and all ailments associated with it. In clinical studies a single half cup of all natural pasta has been shown to produce blood glucose levels upwards of 200 mg/dl in non diabetics which is incredibly unhealthy for any person.

Again regardless of nutritional value all carbohydrates are broken down into simple sugar before being absorbed by the bloodstream. High blood sugar is toxic to humans so it only makes sense to avoid foods that spike your blood sugar and seek your nutritional needs from other foods which happens to be the exact opposite of what the FDA and ADA recommend.

Quote
I'm sorry if I implied that they eat solely grains, I'm not sure I did, but so they still eat a lot of carbohydrates. Many legumes still have carbohydrates, and legumes are eaten with grains to be nutritionally valid. Vegetables themselves also contain a lot of carbohydrates.

The point I am making is that the Indian people as a culture never sat down and feasted on grains for all of their nutrition. As you can see from numerous sources Breakfast lunch and dinner consisted of a varying number of legumes, meat, and grains. Not predominantly one or the other and definitely not a lot of either.  As an example I tried my best to reconstruct how many carbohydrates would be included in the three meals and snacks and was very lenient and I came up with a estimate of 175 carbohydrates. If my guesstimate is correct then from what I know, an average Indian way back when would fit perfectly into the weight maintenance category of a healthy diet.

Quote
By the way, nice job of pointing out the importance of other factors when it comes to health affects whilst ignoring the consequences. Carbohydrates are broken down into sugar for use as energy by the body, which get's stored as fat if that energy is not used. If Americans were more active, the consumption of carbohydrates would be less negative as their presence in the body woudln't be so long-lasting.

No that is a gross oversimplification of how your body uses glycogen and glucose as a source of fuel. It has been proven that the levels of glycogen and glucose obtained from a recommended American diet are completely out of proportion to how quickly your body needs them as a fuel source. So technically what you are saying is true but because of the rate at which you absorb glucose from food into your bloodstream you could never exercise enough to use all of the glucose, and by the time you may need it, insulin would have converted that it into fat and you would actually be gaining weight while exercising (which happened to me at one point during my weight loss). Because you can only store and use a small portion of glucose for cell and muscle fuel, what little you should be getting from a limited carbohydrate diet will last you until you sleep and eat again. All you do by excessively exercising and also eating a lot of carbs is drain your blood glucose reserves faster, store more fat, and your body then signals your brain that you should eat again earlier than you normally would and the cycle repeats. This wouldn't be a problem except for the fact that a recommended diet for a healthy adult is in the 300 carb/day area which goes back to the original point which is way too much regardless of who you are or how active you are.

Now on a low carbohydrate diet you would be eating enough complex carbs from fruits, legumes, or grains that you provide just enough glucose to provide fuel for those cells (100-200 complex carbs max/day) or you would then enter ketosis (>50carbs/day) and your body would burn stored fat for energy at an accelerated rate and everything would be working as it should.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2010, 02:46:51 PM by Nigerius Rex »

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #861 on: July 03, 2010, 03:48:10 PM »
Quote
It does matter how you get the food. Here's why: if you get the carbohydrates from natural foods, i.e. grains, there is going to be a natural limit to the abundance of the carbohydrates. This isn't true for processed foods. Sugar is found in shit it just should not be found in, and if you don't believe me, just go to the grocery store and look. You'll find HFCS and sugar in a variety of items which would be surprising to most people.

I think you very seriously underestimate the amount of carbohydrates in grains and other unprocessed sources of carbohydrates and also the impact they have on the body. To elaborate on that as an example if you were to follow the food pyramids example of a healthy diet and still eat only unprocessed whole grains you would still have problems with blood glucose spikes and all ailments associated with it. In clinical studies a single half cup of all natural pasta has been shown to produce blood glucose levels upwards of 200 mg/dl in non diabetics which is incredibly unhealthy for any person.

No, I think you just seriously underestimate the amount of carbohydrates in processed foods. In a 500g bag of spaghetti noodles, there are 44g of carbohydrates. In a 12 oz can of Dr. Pepper, there are 40g of sugar. Now, I'm willing to bet most people couldn't come close to finishing this bag of pasta in one sitting. I myself eat quite a bit of spaghetti at a time, and I can't even consume half the bag. Yet, the 12oz of soda are no problem for me, or any other American. Most American's drink at least one of those cans a day, many drink a lot more. Obese people seem to drink even more!

And I'd like to see the evidence that eating half a cup of natural pasta is "incredibly unhealthy" for you. That's true for some people, especially people who can't really digest gluten, but it's definitely not true for everybody. Remember your Fathead, it's about evolution.

Quote
Quote
I'm sorry if I implied that they eat solely grains, I'm not sure I did, but so they still eat a lot of carbohydrates. Many legumes still have carbohydrates, and legumes are eaten with grains to be nutritionally valid. Vegetables themselves also contain a lot of carbohydrates.

The point I am making is that the Indian people as a culture never sat down and feasted on grains for all of their nutrition. As you can see from numerous sources Breakfast lunch and dinner consisted of a varying number of legumes, meat, and grains. Not predominantly one or the other and definitely not a lot of either.  As an example I tried my best to reconstruct how many carbohydrates would be included in the three meals and snacks and was very lenient and I came up with a estimate of 175 carbohydrates. If my guesstimate is correct then from what I know, an average Indian way back when would fit perfectly into the weight maintenance category of a healthy diet.

So, what changed between "way back when" and now? Oh right, processed foods, and a more sedentary culture! What didn't go through a major change were the natural sources of carbohydrates they eat / ate.

Quote
Quote
By the way, nice job of pointing out the importance of other factors when it comes to health affects whilst ignoring the consequences. Carbohydrates are broken down into sugar for use as energy by the body, which get's stored as fat if that energy is not used. If Americans were more active, the consumption of carbohydrates would be less negative as their presence in the body woudln't be so long-lasting.

No that is a gross oversimplification of how your body uses glycogen and glucose as a source of fuel. It has been proven that the levels of glycogen and glucose obtained from a recommended American diet are completely out of proportion to how quickly your body needs them as a fuel source. So technically what you are saying is true but because of the rate at which you absorb glucose from food into your bloodstream you could never exercise enough to use all of the glucose, and by the time you may need it, insulin would have converted that it into fat and you would actually be gaining weight while exercising (which happened to me at one point during my weight loss). Because you can only store and use a small portion of glucose for cell and muscle fuel, what little you should be getting from a limited carbohydrate diet will last you until you sleep and eat again. All you do by excessively exercising and also eating a lot of carbs is drain your blood glucose reserves faster, store more fat, and your body then signals your brain that you should eat again earlier than you normally would and the cycle repeats. This wouldn't be a problem except for the fact that a recommended diet for a healthy adult is in the 300 carb/day area which goes back to the original point which is way too much regardless of who you are or how active you are.

Sorry for the gross oversimplification, but are you really going to tell me that American's extremely lazly lifestyle doesn't affect how fat we are? I'm not even talking about exercise necessarily, but just a bout anything which would use energy. Think about Wall-E. Forget about draining your blood glucose levels, but about reducing them. From there, storing fat is not bad / unhealthy in and of itself.

And it's like you don't follow my argument, and insist upon the liberal straw man. My complaint about the poster is that it throws the baby out with the bath water. Why does that poster have pictures of bread, and other perfectly fine dietary items, when there's better, more logical, targets? The problem is not with all carbohydrates, as the poster implies, and ignores the necessary function of carbohydrates. If you took the question the poster asked seriously, "who gives carbohydrates to Diabetics?" and figured diabetics should not eat any carbohydrates, you're pretty much killing the person.




Offline Nigerius Rex

  • Posts: 478
  • Gender: Male
  • Thats Mr. Doctor Professor Patrick
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #862 on: July 03, 2010, 06:37:12 PM »
Quote
In a 500g bag of spaghetti noodles, there are 44g of carbohydrates.

500 grams is just over one pound of spaghetti. On every bag of all natural whole grain spaghetti I just looked up, 1/8 of one pound is one serving and one serving is between 40-50 carbohydrates. I would wager that your average person can consume 2 cups of spaghetti with sauce before being full.  Even at that which seems completely reasonable without any other additions, you are consuming just over 100 carbohydrates if you are being reasonable. What we know is that the average man does not eat 2/8 serving of a bag of pasta and will likely eat until they become uncomfortably full and bloated.

https://www.barillaus.com/Pages/Product-Landing.aspx?brandID=3

Quote
And I'd like to see the evidence that eating half a cup of natural pasta is "incredibly unhealthy" for you. That's true for some people, especially people who can't really digest gluten, but it's definitely not true for everybody. Remember your Fathead, it's about evolution.

Any type of spaghetti (or any food with a heaping number of carbohydrates complex or not) will produce a high blood sugar in anyone. High blood sugar puts unnecessary strain on your cardiovascular system and is responsible for insulin resistance, diabetes and as a side effect, obesity. So while you could likely skirt along if you would actually only eat a very small portion of spaghetti without any type of sauce or seasoning, it would still create a blood sugar spike and if repeated you would still suffer from the exact same problem as someone who eats an equal amount of carbohydrates from simple naturally sugar filled sources.

Quote
So, what changed between "way back when" and now? Oh right, processed foods, and a more sedentary culture! What didn't go through a major change were the natural sources of carbohydrates they eat / ate.

No, what has consistently been observed is an increase in living standards and available food and as such every culture eating more of what they already ate in the past. It is even more self evident now that we have a government and nutritional market centered around eating grains and carbohydrates when in the past we ate only a small or medium amount of them.

You also again ignore that all evidence suggests that processed sweeteners affect the body in the same way that sugar from complex carbohydrate sources does.

Quote
Sorry for the gross oversimplification, but are you really going to tell me that American's extremely lazly lifestyle doesn't affect how fat we are? I'm not even talking about exercise necessarily, but just a bout anything which would use energy. Think about Wall-E. Forget about draining your blood glucose levels, but about reducing them. From there, storing fat is not bad / unhealthy in and of itself.

Absolutely. Gary Taubes elaborates on the concept of activity impulse further in his book Good Calories, Bad Calories. Is a person who exercises fervently skinny because they burn calories exercising, or are they naturally genetically lucky to have a body that prefers to fuel their muscles with whatever calories they eat and not store them as fat? After going on a weight loss crusade I was dreadfully discouraged when I was running 20-40 miles a week and not losing weight any faster than if I had sat on my computer all day on a reduced sugar diet as I am now. The article below is amazingly informative on the subject, I suggest you read it.

https://nymag.com/news/sports/38001/

Quote
And it's like you don't follow my argument, and insist upon the liberal straw man. My complaint about the poster is that it throws the baby out with the bath water. Why does that poster have pictures of bread, and other perfectly fine dietary items, when there's better, more logical, targets? The problem is not with all carbohydrates, as the poster implies, and ignores the necessary function of carbohydrates. If you took the question the poster asked seriously, "who gives carbohydrates to Diabetics?" and figured diabetics should not eat any carbohydrates, you're pretty much killing the person.

No the problem is with all carbohydrates. But more than just carbohydrates it is specifically about quantity consumed. Diabetics and people in its early stages in studies have been able to stop medication and insulin injections by going on a zero/low carb diet and keep their blood sugar as stable as possible all the time. Meanwhile we have an official government organization encouraging people who cannot bring their blood sugar down to eat sugar in an effort to be normal, healthy, and happy when it is directly detrimental to their body's ability to function normally. If you eat a low carb diet and stick with it for as long as you live you will never suffer from Diabetes and a host of other ailments associated with it.

Quote
In a 2004 study published in Diabetes journal, participants were given either the American Diabetes Association recommended moderately high carb diet with a carbohydrate:protein:fat ratio of 55:15:30, or a low carb diet with a carbohydrate:protein:fat ratio of 20:30:50. The mean 24-hour serum blood sugar at the end of the ADA high carb diet was 198 mg/dl. The mean 24-hour serum blood sugar at the end of the low carb diet was 126 mg/dl. The low carb diet resulted in a drop of 36% in mean serum blood sugar as compared to the higher carb diet over the course of the study. Diabetes 53:2375-2382, 2004

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #863 on: July 03, 2010, 08:31:59 PM »
Quote
No the problem is with all carbohydrates. But more than just carbohydrates it is specifically about quantity consumed.

It's much easier to eat a lot of carbohydrates when those carbohydrates are refined and concentrated. You don't feel as full, if nothing else. And that does make a huge difference, and the fact that you have to go to the clearly wrong position that eating half a cup of pasta is incredibly unhealthy for you should be enough of an indication. Basically, you need to explain to me how I eat a lot of pasta and breads, yet am a slightly-underweight, non-diabetic person. If what you say is absolutely true, I should be fat, unenergetic and suffer from diabetes because I constantly eat food which is "incredibly unhealthy" for me.

And while I eat a lot of carbohydrates from natural sources, I take some vigilance to reduce the intake of how much manufactured sugar I eat.

Quote
You also again ignore that all evidence suggests that processed sweeteners affect the body in the same way that sugar from complex carbohydrate sources does.

But you see, that isn't true. I'm not ignoring it, because there's enough evidence to show that there is a difference. Complex carbohydrates take longer to digest, and thus affect the glucose level in the blood differently. Yes, all the carbohydrates get transformed into blood sugar, but over what period of time? Notice that this allows for exercise, while not completely getting rid of your blood sugar level, and creating the pattern you described. As you deplete your blood sugar levels, it's being replenished by further digestion of the complex carbohydrates. Manufactured sugar, on the other hand, spikes the system and starts the sort of cycle that you described.

And why the fuck do you think I'm arguing that carbohydrates don't cause higher blood sugar levels? I'm arguing against this misconception about natural carbohydrates that you put forward. They do not affect the body in the same way, all sugars are not the same! This affects the human body differently, if in subtle of minor ways. Taking everything into account, that is, the American lifestyle, combined with the source of many American's carbohydrates (manufactured), is much more of an important driving factor in the rise of diabetes and obesity in the country than the amount of carbohydrates that the federal government suggests we eat, which probably isn't very close to how American's actually eat.

*edit*

By the way, I will blame the government for how our food subsidies are set up. We grow way too much corn, which gets turned into way too much HFCS. We need to subsidize more vegetable, lettuce and fruit growing.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2010, 08:42:35 PM by Scheavo »

Offline Nigerius Rex

  • Posts: 478
  • Gender: Male
  • Thats Mr. Doctor Professor Patrick
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #864 on: July 03, 2010, 10:37:01 PM »
Why or how exactly am I wrong? Pasta and other carbohydrate rich food raise blood sugar regardless of their nutritional content. High blood sugar is toxic to your cardiovascular system and will lead to diabetes and plenty of other ailments commonly associated with it. Studies have shown that otherwise healthy adult diabietics can completely eliminate their need for insulin injections and other medications when following a low carbohydrate diet. We know from history and from numerous studies that an extended low carbohydrate diet has no negative health effects because your body can synthesize all the glucose it needs from dietary proteins.

I would go ahead and wager a guess that you have been skinny all of your life and not had problems with obesity. If its true then it would be for the same reason most naturally skinny people are skinny, genetics. However dont try and use just your weight as a marker for health. Just because you are skinny does not mean you don't have diabetes or high cholesterol. We are now seeing a huge spike in the number of skinny diabetic people. Would you care to guess why? Its because high blood sugar, although toxic, wont always make you fat and its why I consider obesity a side effect. It is also why it is so easy to understand why Gary Taubes and other researchers like him observations about high blood sugar and exercise are correct.

Quote
It's much easier to eat a lot of carbohydrates when those carbohydrates are refined and concentrated. You don't feel as full, if nothing else. And that does make a huge difference

No, in fact that has nothing to do with it. Its true if you are eating something like ice cream but if we are talking about all natural grains and other sources of carbohydrate how full you are depends on things like the size of your stomach, dietary fiber, protein content, how much of the food or drink, liquid or solid etc.

Quote
because there's enough evidence to show that there is a difference.

No, there may be a subtle difference somewhere but there has never been any conclusive study that can prove the link between specifically HFCS or other processed sugars and a sharper increase in disease or other health problems when compared to all natural sugar.

Quote
Complex carbohydrates take longer to digest, and thus affect the glucose level in the blood differently. Yes, all the carbohydrates get transformed into blood sugar, but over what period of time?

I don't know where you are getting this information. Studies I read and observations I have performed personally with a blood glucose meter show the same spike in blood sugar whether you eat a cup of pasta or a candy bar an hour after consumption. There is no difference. You will obviously get more or less of what you need because of the varying nutritional content of the food, but it will always be accompanied by a blood sugar spike because of the carbohydrates followed by a normalization of blood sugar by insulin as it converts the sugar into fat.


Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #865 on: July 03, 2010, 10:48:54 PM »
I would go ahead and wager a guess that you have been skinny all of your life and not had problems with obesity. If its true then it would be for the same reason most naturally skinny people are skinny, genetics. However dont try and use just your weight as a marker for health. Just because you are skinny does not mean you don't have diabetes or high cholesterol. We are now seeing a huge spike in the number of skinny diabetic people. Would you care to guess why? Its because high blood sugar, although toxic, wont always make you fat and its why I consider obesity a side effect. It is also why it is so easy to understand why Gary Taubes and other researchers like him observations about high blood sugar and exercise are correct.

You seem to be forgetting: My argument is that your diet your be based upon genetics, not any standard or norm given out by anyone. My point about my health isn't meant to be a marker for anyone, so once again: please follow my argument and debate me, not some straw man your keep pulling up for this.

And notice, I said skinny and non-diabetic.

Quote
Quote
It's much easier to eat a lot of carbohydrates when those carbohydrates are refined and concentrated. You don't feel as full, if nothing else. And that does make a huge difference

No, in fact that has nothing to do with it. Its true if you are eating something like ice cream but if we are talking about all natural grains and other sources of carbohydrate how full you are depends on things like the size of your stomach, dietary fiber, protein content, how much of the food or drink, liquid or solid etc.

Hey guess what? Natural carbohydrates have a lot of dietary fiber, which makes you feel fuller quicker. It's the refined, processed sugar which has no nutritional value, which you are thinking of. Also, drinks are where a lot of people get sugar from - which you can drink more of.

Quote
Quote
Complex carbohydrates take longer to digest, and thus affect the glucose level in the blood differently. Yes, all the carbohydrates get transformed into blood sugar, but over what period of time?

I don't know where you are getting this information. Studies I read and observations I have performed personally with a blood glucose meter show the same spike in blood sugar whether you eat a cup of pasta or a candy bar an hour after consumption. There is no difference. You will obviously get more or less of what you need because of the varying nutritional content of the food, but it will always be accompanied by a blood sugar spike because of the carbohydrates followed by a normalization of blood sugar by insulin as it converts the sugar into fat.

Google the "glycemic index." It's an index used by diabetics to estimate the affect of food on their blood glucose level, and to manage their diabetes.

The question isn't whether there will be a blood sugar spike, it's a question of how intense and how long it will last. And it should be obvious why this matters.

Speaking of which, I'm going drinking now. I'm going to make sure I pace myself so I don't' get too drunk.

Offline Nigerius Rex

  • Posts: 478
  • Gender: Male
  • Thats Mr. Doctor Professor Patrick
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #866 on: July 04, 2010, 01:03:33 AM »
Quote
so once again: please follow my argument and debate me, not some straw man your keep pulling up for this.

Alright. Here is the problem it keeps coming down to. Diabetics cannot bring their blood sugar down without extra insulin and sometimes other medications. If a food like pasta which is placed lower on the glycemic index will spike your blood sugar (which it does in all observed incidences), why deal with the detrimental side effects as well as medication and insulin injections if you could avoid the food in the first place? This is the goal of the poster. As I keep repeating, diabetics becomes normal healthy people if they avoid carbohydrates entirely. Not just processed ones.

We know that a high carbohydrate diet will lead to insulin resistance and eventually diabetes as we see now with a large number of the American population. This path leads to where diabetics are now and still struggling with their diabetes because of carbohydrates recommended to them by the government.

Quote
Hey guess what? Natural carbohydrates have a lot of dietary fiber, which makes you feel fuller quicker. It's the refined, processed sugar which has no nutritional value, which you are thinking of. Also, drinks are where a lot of people get sugar from - which you can drink more of.

Fiber does not produce an immediate feeling of fullness. As I said earlier there are several factors which determine whether you feel full at the time of eating. All dietary fiber does is aid in long term digestion which helps you feel full hours after you previous meal.

So yes fiber aids in digestion and reduces the amount of sugar absorbed into your bloodstream but like exercise it does not have a significant enough impact to offset high carbohydrate intake and is best countered by simply avoiding concentrated sources of any carbohydrate.

Quote
Google the "glycemic index." It's an index used by diabetics to estimate the affect of food on their blood glucose level, and to manage their diabetes.

The question isn't whether there will be a blood sugar spike, it's a question of how intense and how long it will last. And it should be obvious why this matters.

I know what the glycemic index is and I also know that it is a guideline to be used in conjunction with an already low carbohydrate centered diet and it has some big problems like not taking into account that foods categorized as low glucose can and do produce the same glucose readings as foods high in index.

And regardless of all of that, what do you mean by intensity and how long it will last? There is no compartmentalization. Your blood sugar is your blood sugar and if it is high (<150mg/dl) an hour or two hours after a meal then something is definitely wrong whether the meal is pasta or whether it is a candy bar.



Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #867 on: July 04, 2010, 11:49:05 AM »
Why are we looking at a diabetic diet when trying to come up with the best diet for a non-diabetic person? If I drink 2 beers a day, as a healthy person with a healthy liver, there's several studies which show that will be beneficial to me. However, if I've been an alcoholic, and have destroyed my liver, maybe I shouldn't drink any alcohol. Likewise, as a healthy person with healthy kidneys and pancreas, I can eat a big meal full of pasta and lot of other carbohydrates, and be perfectly fine from it because I haven't pushed my system over the limit to diabetes.

And yes, a high carbohydrate diet will lead to diabetes, but you need to distinguish between types of diabetes, and you have yet to actually qualify the statement that the recommended daily intake of 50% of your caloric intake from carbs, is "too high." Furthermore, American's receive a lot of refined sugars and sugars which quickly spike the system, add no nutritional value, which all are known factors to increase the risk of diabetes.

Which is why I said that the poster ignores such things, because it does.

Quote
Hey guess what? Natural carbohydrates have a lot of dietary fiber, which makes you feel fuller quicker. It's the refined, processed sugar which has no nutritional value, which you are thinking of. Also, drinks are where a lot of people get sugar from - which you can drink more of.

Fiber does not produce an immediate feeling of fullness. As I said earlier there are several factors which determine whether you feel full at the time of eating. All dietary fiber does is aid in long term digestion which helps you feel full hours after you previous meal.

So yes fiber aids in digestion and reduces the amount of sugar absorbed into your bloodstream but like exercise it does not have a significant enough impact to offset high carbohydrate intake and is best countered by simply avoiding concentrated sources of any carbohydrate.

Can't you just admit this is a point I have in my favor? You're trying to hide behind the fact that there are a lot of variables involved in what makes someone feel full, but it isn't as subjective and varying as you make it out to be. Quit trying to obfuscate the issue. Perform an experiment with yourself. Drink a 12 oz can of soda, see if you feel full and for how long. Then, go eat the equivelant amount of carbohydrates from a banana (I don't care to compute how many banana's that is), and see how full you feel and for how long. Or, eat a lot of pasta, and tell me how long that stays with you.

And I'm noticing your changing what you say a little. Best to avoid "concentrated sources of any carbohydrate." But that's exactly what refined and processed sugars are. Bread's and pasta's are more concentrated than fruit, but the question is whether the human body can handle the load.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Google the "glycemic index." It's an index used by diabetics to estimate the affect of food on their blood glucose level, and to manage their diabetes.

The question isn't whether there will be a blood sugar spike, it's a question of how intense and how long it will last. And it should be obvious why this matters.

I know what the glycemic index is and I also know that it is a guideline to be used in conjunction with an already low carbohydrate centered diet and it has some big problems like not taking into account that foods categorized as low glucose can and do produce the same glucose readings as foods high in index.

And regardless of all of that, what do you mean by intensity and how long it will last? There is no compartmentalization. Your blood sugar is your blood sugar and if it is high (<150mg/dl) an hour or two hours after a meal then something is definitely wrong whether the meal is pasta or whether it is a candy bar.

There may be problems with the glycemic index, but at the basic of it's foundation is the simple fact that not all carbs affect your blood sugar in the same ways. More complex carbohydrate take longer to digest, provide hours of energy, and don't spike the system like refined sugars. So basically, the glycemic index uses as a basic starting point something you reject: that all carbohydrates are the same and affect the body in the same way.

Offline Nigerius Rex

  • Posts: 478
  • Gender: Male
  • Thats Mr. Doctor Professor Patrick
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #868 on: July 04, 2010, 05:14:08 PM »
Quote
Why are we looking at a diabetic diet when trying to come up with the best diet for a non-diabetic person? If I drink 2 beers a day, as a healthy person with a healthy liver, there's several studies which show that will be beneficial to me. However, if I've been an alcoholic, and have destroyed my liver, maybe I shouldn't drink any alcohol. Likewise, as a healthy person with healthy kidneys and pancreas, I can eat a big meal full of pasta and lot of other carbohydrates, and be perfectly fine from it because I haven't pushed my system over the limit to diabetes.

What is the difference between a diabetic and a healthy person? Unless the disease is passed on genetically, all it is is a resistance to the effects of insulin. There is no difference in how a diabetic processes or absorbs carbohydrates, just how their bodies try to stabilize their blood sugar afterwards. But lets think this through. If you admit that a diet rich in carbohydrates leads to diabetes, and abstaining from all carbohydrates prevents the occurrence of any problems, then how does it make sense that some carbohydrates affect the body differently and can be eaten in excess without causing problems? The end result is the same in every clinical study. Carbohydrates lead to high blood sugar, consistent high blood sugar leads to insulin resistance, insulin resistance leads to diabetes and by time you are also likely obese.

Yes someone like you may be able to stave off obesity longer than someone like me would if we were on a high carbohydrate diet. You would probably also not gain as much weight as someone like I would. But the end result remains the same regardless of how you want to categorize carbs as good or bad.

https://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/is-glycemic-index-irrelevant.html

Quote
And yes, a high carbohydrate diet will lead to diabetes, but you need to distinguish between types of diabetes, and you have yet to actually qualify the statement that the recommended daily intake of 50% of your caloric intake from carbs, is "too high." Furthermore, American's receive a lot of refined sugars and sugars which quickly spike the system, add no nutritional value, which all are known factors to increase the risk of diabetes.

Either type of diabetic respond to a reduced or no carbohydrate diet the same way. Whether your body does not naturally produce enough or you are insulin resistant, eating food that does not raise your blood sugar at all literally reverses the damage done and returns normally sensitive diabetics into normal and functioning people without insulin or medication.

Quote
Furthermore, American's receive a lot of refined sugars and sugars which quickly spike the system, add no nutritional value, which all are known factors to increase the risk of diabetes.

The problem is that when you try to compartmentalize carbohydrates like you are doing now, you make it harder for people to understand the danger of high blood sugar in itself. So yeah pasta scores better on the glycemic index than a candy bar because it has little fat, medium levels of protein, and a small amount of fiber. On the flip side, a candy bar and a bowl of pasta produce the same or comparable blood sugar levels an hour after a meal is eaten. Whether you are full or satisfied is irrelevant. The damage is done and if you repeat the process over and over again you will become diabetic.  

So I will say again, sugar is sugar is sugar is sugar. Sugar raises blood glucose. until you provide me a study that conclusively proves processed sugar any differently affects the body than normal sugar I am going to not respond to this anymore. The reason I am such a stickler on this is because even organizations that agree with your line of reasoning agree that sugar as a whole is the danger, not specifically hfcs or other processed sweeteners.


Quote
Quit trying to obfuscate the issue. Perform an experiment with yourself. Drink a 12 oz can of soda, see if you feel full and for how long. Then, go eat the equivelant amount of carbohydrates from a banana (I don't care to compute how many banana's that is), and see how full you feel and for how long. Or, eat a lot of pasta, and tell me how long that stays with you.

And I'm noticing your changing what you say a little. Best to avoid "concentrated sources of any carbohydrate." But that's exactly what refined and processed sugars are. Bread's and pasta's are more concentrated than fruit, but the question is whether the human body can handle the load.

Maybe we just misunderstood each other on this part. I agree eating pure sugar as in candy is much worse than eating its equivalent in bananas, but for the wrong reasons. A candy bar will lack any type of nutrition that would keep you full whereas a bannana has a lot of things going for it nutrition wise, still contains a lot of sugar which causes the same problem the candy bar will, on top of not satisfying you. Where we disagree is how dangerous it is to your long term well being. Your body can handle high doses of sugar for a little while, but you made my point. The body cannot handle the load and eventually you develop diabetes because of it.

« Last Edit: July 05, 2010, 01:27:00 PM by Nigerius Rex »

Offline Nigerius Rex

  • Posts: 478
  • Gender: Male
  • Thats Mr. Doctor Professor Patrick
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #869 on: July 05, 2010, 01:51:46 AM »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCVo8HbDpXI#t=1m49s

Watch that movie using that link, it jumps to a minute and a half in when the doc starts talking about a sugary vs starchy diet (candy vs potatoes, pasta, etc).

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #870 on: July 05, 2010, 10:50:16 PM »
then how does it make sense that some carbohydrates affect the body differently and can be eaten in excess without causing problems?

Where did I ever say they can be eaten in excess? I'm pointing out that "excess" is different for a diabetic than it is a healthy person.

Quote
Quote
And yes, a high carbohydrate diet will lead to diabetes, but you need to distinguish between types of diabetes, and you have yet to actually qualify the statement that the recommended daily intake of 50% of your caloric intake from carbs, is "too high." Furthermore, American's receive a lot of refined sugars and sugars which quickly spike the system, add no nutritional value, which all are known factors to increase the risk of diabetes.

Either type of diabetic respond to a reduced or no carbohydrate diet the same way. Whether your body does not naturally produce enough or you are insulin resistant, eating food that does not raise your blood sugar at all literally reverses the damage done and returns normally sensitive diabetics into normal and functioning people without insulin or medication.

Sorry, I had a brain fart and wrote types of diabetes, and meant types of carbohydrates.


Quote
Quote
Furthermore, American's receive a lot of refined sugars and sugars which quickly spike the system, add no nutritional value, which all are known factors to increase the risk of diabetes.

The problem is that when you try to compartmentalize carbohydrates like you are doing now, you make it harder for people to understand the danger of high blood sugar in itself. So yeah pasta scores better on the glycemic index than a candy bar because it has little fat, medium levels of protein, and a small amount of fiber. On the flip side, a candy bar and a bowl of pasta produce the same or comparable blood sugar levels an hour after a meal is eaten. Whether you are full or satisfied is irrelevant. The damage is done and if you repeat the process over and over again you will become diabetic.  

Soo, I'm wrong because some people may be not be able to follow it?

And whether you are full or satisfied is relevant. I don't know why you keep thinking this. If you aren't full or satisfied, you go back for more; and more very often means more carbohydrates. The cycle you talk about is much more vicious with sweets and other concentrated sources of carbohydrates. Furthermore, a lack of nutrients, found with processed/refined carbohydrates, helps make you fatter and more prone to insulin resistance.

Quote
So I will say again, sugar is sugar is sugar is sugar. Sugar raises blood glucose. until you provide me a study that conclusively proves processed sugar any differently affects the body than normal sugar I am going to not respond to this anymore. The reason I am such a stickler on this is because even organizations that agree with your line of reasoning agree that sugar as a whole is the danger, not specifically hfcs or other processed sweeteners.

You're narrowing the parameters too much (which has been my argument the entire time). Yes, on one level, sugar is sugar is sugar is sugar. But you for some reason don't want to look at the overall picture of how carbohydrates affect a person in different ways. I've pointed to studies, I've pointed to common medical practices, I've pointed to evolutionary biology, I've pointed to simple common sense. In many of these area's, we agree, you just stubbornly want to disagree. You keep thinking I'm saying "you're wrong," when all I'm saying is "yes, but there's also this to consider."

Quote
Quote
Quit trying to obfuscate the issue. Perform an experiment with yourself. Drink a 12 oz can of soda, see if you feel full and for how long. Then, go eat the equivelant amount of carbohydrates from a banana (I don't care to compute how many banana's that is), and see how full you feel and for how long. Or, eat a lot of pasta, and tell me how long that stays with you.

And I'm noticing your changing what you say a little. Best to avoid "concentrated sources of any carbohydrate." But that's exactly what refined and processed sugars are. Bread's and pasta's are more concentrated than fruit, but the question is whether the human body can handle the load.

Maybe we just misunderstood each other on this part. I agree eating pure sugar as in candy is much worse than eating its equivalent in bananas, but for the wrong reasons. A candy bar will lack any type of nutrition that would keep you full whereas a bannana has a lot of things going for it nutrition wise, still contains a lot of sugar which causes the same problem the candy bar will, on top of not satisfying you. Where we disagree is how dangerous it is to your long term well being. Your body can handle high doses of sugar for a little while, but you made my point. The body cannot handle the load and eventually you develop diabetes because of it.

Last time I checked, we don't know exactly what kind of load the body can handle. Nor do we know how this holds true for everybody. Either way, the human body evolved to handle carbohydrates, and their complete demonization by you is ridiculous. You can't just lump a candy bar and a banana together based upon the fact that your body will process sugar out of it. I also wasn't aware that doctors had actually diagnosed what actually causes a person to stop producing enough insulin. Therefor, you can't say that high blood sugar alone is responsible for diabetes, though you can say it is a necessary component. For all you know, the nutrients that come along with a balanced diet prevent the body from breaking down and not be able to produce insulin (please correct me here if you have evidence to the contrary), meaning the spike in blood sugar caused by eating fruits, vegetables, starches, etc, are able to be handled by the body in a more or less safe manner (you can still gain weight, but that's why you moderate yourself).

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #871 on: July 07, 2010, 10:51:30 AM »
Random question:

In another thread you linked to a report about how people in prison are fed according to the federal guidelines. Is there any relationship between prison, obesity and diabetes?

Offline Nigerius Rex

  • Posts: 478
  • Gender: Male
  • Thats Mr. Doctor Professor Patrick
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #872 on: July 08, 2010, 05:33:50 AM »
I dont recall any studies that focus on obesity rates in prisons and google is not turning up much.

I know they eat a 2000-3000 calorie diet and in some prisons can use received or earned money on snacks and other foods. If I were to guess I would say that inmate populations look about the same as the average person in the US is now with the majority being slightly overweight or obese.

Take a look at this:
https://www.thetimesnews.com/articles/county-32316-served-inmates.html

Based on that meal plan I input it into my personal calorie and nutrition tracker and everything looked about right if you want to be fat.

https://img651.imageshack.us/i/prisonmeal.png/

https://img197.imageshack.us/i/prisnfood2.png/
« Last Edit: July 08, 2010, 05:45:11 AM by Nigerius Rex »

Offline Tanatra

  • Posts: 299
  • Gender: Male
  • Forum Spider
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #873 on: July 08, 2010, 09:09:30 AM »
Last time I checked, we don't know exactly what kind of load the body can handle. Nor do we know how this holds true for everybody.

True, but we can reasonably estimate. The average person only needs 100-150 grams of carbohydrates a day, and possibly more/less than that depending on activity level and BMI (Basal Metabolic Intake, not that body mass index bullshit).

I wish I had time right now to find some studies for you that back this claim up, but these estimates come from athletes and hardcore (intelligent) health & exercise freaks that know their bodies inside & out, and are free of the special interests that so many scientific studies are subject to. After two years of experimenting with my diet and using an Excel spreadsheet for tracking macronutrient intake, I've come to agree with those estimates as well.

The FDA gets lobbied just like any other government organization. Do you think companies like Kellogg aren't doing their damndest to protect the federal guidelines that claim you should be eating more of their products? Hell, studies claiming that eggs were bad for you didn't start coming out until cereal became a popular breakfast food!

You can't just lump a candy bar and a banana together based upon the fact that your body will process sugar out of it, mmeaning the spike in blood sugar caused by eating fruits, vegetables, starches, etc, are able to be handled by the body in a more or less safe manner (you can still gain weight, but that's why you moderate yourself).

Also true; it's better to eat an orange than drink orange juice, as the fiber in the orange will slow down the digestion and releasing of carbohydrates into the bloodstream, whereas the orange juice is basically a sugar bomb. Fructose is also predisposed to being stored as liver glycogen instead of muscle glycogen, the former of which can lead to fat gain. Granted, this gain can be minimized if you moderate yourself like you said, but I just wanted to highlight the differences between carbohydrate types.

I wish I could say more, but as I'm short on time I'll just end with two posts by Robb Wolf, a sports nutritionist that was fired from his last job when he started suggesting changes to the "Zone" diet that the company had been making money off of for years:

https://robbwolf.com/2009/10/08/crossfit-on-a-low-carb-paleo-diet-mat-lalonde-reporting/

https://robbwolf.com/2008/11/03/post-wo-nutrition/

However, since I'm not quite a regular poster here, it's not like anyone is going to read/respond to this anyway.  :)

Offline chknptpie

  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3747
  • Gender: Female
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #874 on: July 08, 2010, 10:13:19 AM »
What the heck is crawling out of that avatar's panties?!  :omg: