>hurrrr sugar is bad
shitcunts all of you
Might want to post a pic of a healthy guy eating sugar next time bro
Weve been fed (kek) lies about everything. Even diet. It makes me angry.
>>37949252
Canadian nutrition recomends 25g
If its not bad, how much IS bad? What is a moderate healthy consumption of sugar?
>>37949252
This was just after he had rode like 250km in 24 hours or some shit.
>>37949252
is this what they meant when they said to carb load?
>>37949252
>being a carb shill
>>37949276
100+?
I douse everything I eat with pure olive oil
is this okay?
>>37949491
You have science to back that up?
>>37949276
>What is a moderate healthy consumption of sugar?
None
>>37949476
Wrong. He eats like this all the fucking time and barely bikes. Go look at his strava.
>>37949252
>hurrrr sugar is bad
and look at this faggot, that's how """"""""" good""""""""" sugar is, it makes you look like a fucking crackhead
"Fruit is pure sugar" scot mendelson
>>37949252
>wants to show that sugar is healthy
>posts gif of guy who looks like crack addict
>>37949252
>roiding for this
>>37950323
He's also severely mentally ill and looks half dead.
>>37950323
>barely bikes
>logged 448km this week
yeah hes not pulling pro level mileage but he rides alot
>>37949252
Is it possible to lose weight by cutting out all chocolate, chips etc and still drinking say soda drinks from time to time?
Recently I have just had my usual meals without any snacks as I used to. I do love soda tho but I do want to lose my belly fat
>>37949252
harley's advice works if you CONSTANTLY DO CARDIO. high carb low fat is perfect for that. but if you just sit at home all day
nah
>>37951200
beef what a relief
>>37952005
sticky
Sugar, both natural and refined, does not cause obesity, diabetes or heart disease. Most of the increase in sugar consumption in the West occurred following the Industrial Revolution, in the 19th century. Diabetes and obesity only started becoming problems in the second half of the 20th century when people had already been smashing in the sugar for decades. Refined sugar can be part of any healthy diet to supply enough calories and to improve the taste of food, especially in active people.
Sugar is just human fuel. Diabetes and obesity are caused by diets high in fat, saturated fat, added refined fat and animal products. Most people automatically compensate for calories they get from refined sugar, they don't compensate for calories from fat. Load up on sugar and drop the lard if you want to be lean.
>>37952282
>diets high in fat, saturated fat, added refined fat and animal products
>hurr fat bad
enjoy your no testosterone
>>37952282
t. Nestle
>>37952282
its fucking hilarious how your chart correlates with the increasing obesity, diabetes and heart disease in the US and you are talking about shit that's simply not true
what the fuck is wrong with your brain? nobody argues that a small amount of sugar can be implemented into any diet, but going as far as to say that it doesn't cause obesity or diabetes makes you deserve to be slapped across the face for being so stupid because it is exactly the kind of shit that landwhales from tumblr say constantly: "muh mocca frapuchino and liters of ice cream doesn't make me fat as long as I don't eat mcdonalds"
just read a medical paper instead of spouting stupidity to reinforce your own opinion
>>37952282
>there are actually people RIGHT NOW on /fit/ who think sugar shouldn't be avoided
>>37951297
ive seen crack addicts that look healthier than him
>>37949252
Why would you add sugar if oatmeal is supposed to be healthy? Also why not add fruit + a bit of cinnamon instead? These vegans are crazy.
>>37952334
>its fucking hilarious how your chart correlates with the increasing obesity, diabetes and heart disease in the US and you are talking about shit that's simply not true
It doesn't though. Diabetes prevalence was way under 1% in 1950. In 1950 people consumed 80% of the sugar consumed today. Obesity started going up massively in the 80s. So you're saying for some mystical reason 80 lbs/year sugar is fine, but 85 lbs makes you fat as fuck and diabetic? Great logic.
The whole "sugar makes you fat" theory is just a bunch of fucking wank that makes no sense. Same shit like that study out of China that said rice gives you diabetes. Fucking kek, rice consumption in China is down massively since the 60s, diabetes is skyrocketing. Chinese were getting over half their calories from refined white rice in 1950s and diabetes was unheard of. Carbphobes and sugarphobes are just fucking stupid.
>muh mocca frapuchino and liters of ice cream doesn't make me fat as long as I don't eat mcdonalds
Ice cream is a high-fat low-sugar food. Fatheads can't even identify a high-fat food when they see it, they just see the 40% of calories from sugar and think that's a lot, never mind the fucking 60% calories from fat.
>>37952445
There are strong indications that sugar does indirectly correlate with body weight.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26376619
>>37952445
just read a medical paper instead of spouting stupidity to reinforce your own opinion
>>37952445
>Ice cream is a high-fat low-sugar food
Please go back to tumblr so you can find new excuses to being fat
>>37952469
Fatties become more insulin sensitive on 50% sugar diet, more insulin resistant on low-carb
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Richard_Surwit2/publication/14121677_Metabolic_and_behavioral_effects_of_a_high-sucrose_diet_during_weight_loss/links/0f3175320cba9ef86b000000.pdf
>>37952498
Are you retarded? 50% calories from fat is high-fat. 50% calories from carbs is low-carb. Can you do fucking math? 9x11 = 99 calories, 4x24 = 96 calories. There's actually more calories from fat than sugar, which means there is an insane amount of fat. So yes, ice cream is a high-fat low-sugar food, just like donuts, cookies, cakes, etc. Thanks for proving my point.
>>37952524
A fifty-fifty ratio is not high-X low-Y. You don't even know what you claimed in your previous post.
>>37952515
>Fatties become more insulin sensitive on 50% sugar diet, more insulin resistant on low-carb
During weight loss.
>In summary, our study failed to find any adverse metabolic
or behavioral effects of high sucrose consumption in a low-fat,
weight-loss diet. The total daily energy intake of our subjects
included a greater proportion of sucrose than would result from
diets incorporating the low-fat, high-sucrose foods on the market
today. We therefore conclude that the use of sucrose in a weight-loss regimen is unlikely to cause problems for the
average patient, as long as total energy intake is restricted.
Cool, this study proves that calories in < calories out leads to weight loss. And guess why it worked here? Because the subjects restricted their caloric intake. Fatties outside of this study would consume over their TDEE because sugar is making them crave more food.
>>37952282
Bitch, please. There's a reason why it's called sugar disease in many languages, and why before insulin, the only way to stay alive was to go extremely low carb and stay away from shit tier poors food like bread.
>>37952005
>I do loves muh soda
>muh curves
>muh cundishuns
>it's juhnetucks
Might as well kill yourself right now.
>>37952546
>A fifty-fifty ratio is not high-X low-Y
Yes it is. The baseline is human nutrient requirements. A food is very high in calcium if it contains 1% calcium. According to your great logic, all foods are low in calcium because a food is only high in calcium if it contains more calcium than anything else, at least 50% calcium by mass I guess. Fucking fantastic.
>>37952578
They improved their blood lipids on high-sugar. Read discussion section too. There's a mini-study where they put 3 people on high-sugar and low-carb diets alternating and it directly controls their fasting insulin, low-carb gives you diabetes but we already knew.
>>37952585
It's called sugar disease because diabetics cannot regulate their blood sugar. Did you know that some people have Type 1 diabetes and it has nothing to do with their diet?
>>37952607
>According to your great logic, all foods are low in calcium because a food is only high in calcium if it contains more calcium than anything else, at least 50% calcium by mass I guess
Where did I claim this is the definition of low/high?
Sugar is literally poison. Anyone who doesn't avoid consuming it in excess should watch this, just to challenge their view;
https://youtu.be/dBnniua6-oM
>Eating sugar
>>37952282
Enjoy your diabetes and non alcoholic fatty liver disease.
>muh fat is bad
Go back to the '60s with that.
>>37950323
I don't even cycle much and I've seen him at the top of Mount Lofty more than once.
>>37952623
>>37952607
>RDI of sugar for men is 150 calories.
http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/HealthyLiving/HealthyEating/Nutrition/Sugar-101_UCM_306024_Article.jsp#.V4uDKOt96Uk
>RDI of total fat no more than 30%
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad348.pdf
For fat we are going to consider a 2k TDEE diet. So 66.66g of total fat.
This means that 100g of ice cream covers 56% (21g*4 / 150) of your sugar needs and 16.5% (11g / 66.66) of your total fat needs.
According to baseline requirements ice cream is higher in sugar compared to total fat.
>>37951157
He is a crackhead. He's admitted he used to be into drugs. Not just that but he's admitted to being a drug dealer. I have no respect for him or drug dealers.
If he's willing to ruin peoples lives for money with drugs I can guarantee you he'll do the same with youtube and pedalling his bullshit to make some cash.
>>37952005
Soda is the easiest addiction to kick, and therefore the easiest calories to lose
Don't be a faggot
>>37952607
>In dis here research
>funded by nestle, pepsico, nabisco and the coca cola company
Here's something that is not insane: https://www.uab.edu/news/innovation/item/4997-low-carb-diet-recommended-for-diabetics
>>37952701
kek and then he talks about 30k children dying or something
>>37949494
I douse your're mom with olive oil before i eat her. Is this okay?
>>37952445
In a time when diabeties was unheard of, people were dying of "natural causes"
>>37952445
>Ice cream is a high-fat low-sugar food
>>37952745
That's because they didn't have no sugahs back then. Feed them twinkies and soda by the family pack and bam! Health for miles!
>>37952445
>Diabetes prevalence was way under 1% in 1950. In 1950 people consumed 80% of the sugar consumed today. Obesity started going up massively in the 80s
you mean when the first generation of people who grew up eating this much sugar started reaching middle age?
>anon are you eating full fat cottage cheese? :/
>how about you try this juice i just made with 6 grapefruits!!
>love putting granola on this vanilla yogurt
>i bought ice cream because it was 2 for 1 and how could i resist?
FAT ROOMMATES
>>37952786
>mfw fat people try and tell me i have an unhealthy diet because i eat a chocolate bar every day when they literally make a stirfry with noodles and then serve it on rice
>>37952462
if what most overweight people consume is high on sugar (candy, chocolate, cookies, soda and so on) ofc it does indirectly correlate with body weight. it doesnt necessarily mean sugar itself makes them fat tho.
people are fat because their diet is shit and eating too many calories (from high-sugar food) coupled with bad habits is the main reason.
>>37952875
Please tell me how its not easier to over-consume on high sugar carbs compared to high fiber carbs. It has a direct effect on how full your body feels after eating a meal. If you eat anything with added sugar you basically agree to becoming fat by eating more.
>>37952649
>non alcoholic fatty liver disease.
abuse of sugar does that?
>>37949252
He made his blood tests public and it was thought that he could have AIDS
>>37953044
There is actually exactly zero evidence that fructose causes liver disease, and there isn't a single documented case of somebody developing liver disease from sugar consumption. It's a myth made up by a couple Jews to distract from the fact that fat makes you fat.
>>37949252
Nigga I don't need the glucose
>>37953063
thanks
>>37952445
what youre saying is true to an extent but also remember that sugar most likely had lesser health effects as prior generations were much more active prior to modern industrial automation.
i always put it this way: sliced bread is an allegory for obesity as it combines the two major associated influencing factors; abundance and sedentation. less work to make, easier to get more
by and large we have an activity problem, not a diet problem, but theres truth to both sides of this
>>37953063
>he doesn't know about hyperinsulinemia
kekity kek
Thermodynamics makes you fat, retard.
>>37949252
Processed sugar could be argued as bad. rather than two molecules of glucose, it has a molecule of glucose and sucrose. Sucrose basically goes straight to fat because it is difficult for the body to break it down immediately and use it.
Organic sugar is better than processed
What is de novo lipogenesis for $500, Alex.
The only sugars you should be eating are fruits. Amd there is no limit for how many fruits you can eat. Some people are fruitarians and healthier than ever.
Processed sugar is literally toxic.
>>37952498
>total fat 16% daily value
>saturated fat 35% daily value
>total carbs 8% daily value
>icecream is a high carb food
Your low carb diet is making you demented
>>37952282
>sugar does not cause diabetes
>>37956847
>novo lipogenesis
The enzymatic pathway for converting dietary carbohydrate (CHO) into fat, or de novo lipogenesis (DNL), is present in humans, whereas the capacity to convert fats into CHO does not exist. Here, the quantitative importance of DNL in humans is reviewed, focusing on the response to increased intake of dietary CHO. Eucaloric replacement of dietary fat by CHO does not induce hepatic DNL to any substantial degree. Similarly, addition of CHO to a mixed diet does not increase hepatic DNL to quantitatively important levels, as long as CHO energy intake remains less than total energy expenditure (TEE). Instead, dietary CHO replaces fat in the whole-body fuel mixture, even in the post-absorptive state. Body fat is thereby accrued, but the pathway of DNL is not traversed; instead, a coordinated set of metabolic adaptations, including resistance of hepatic glucose production to suppression by insulin, occurs that allows CHO oxidation to increase and match CHO intake. Only when CHO energy intake exceeds TEE does DNL in liver or adipose tissue contribute significantly to the whole-body energy economy. It is concluded that DNL is not the pathway of first resort for added dietary CHO, in humans.
>>37952546
Gram of fat = 9 calories
Gram of carb = 4 calories
Even it it was a 50/50 split food of grams from carb and fat it still has more calories from fat.
>>37952282
This has to be bait. There's no way somebody can actually be this retarded and still be capable of breathing
If anyone needs any kind of diet 'advice', it would be the exact opposite of what this anon just said.
>>37952282
>animal products
I understand now. It's a retarded vegan
>>37956985
DNL takes %30 of the calories in CHO consumed to be used up in the process.
>>37956913
>Some people are fruitarians and healthier than ever
I wouldn't have so hard time beliving this if all of them wouldn't look like they escaped form a concentration camp. It also doesn't seem all that practical or natural to eat around 10kg of fruit a day and nothing else. Isn't that where the amount revolves around roughly?
>>37956985
DNL rarely happens because of the calorie expenditure unless you go far beyond TDEE?
I would love for some kind of feature that restricted you from posting in these kinds of threads until you post a verified, time-stamped picture of your body.
I'm sitting here imagining landwhales arguing about why their ice-cream isn't as bad for you as the other anon's soda
If you even take a second to consider the statement 'all calories are equal' its already too fucking late and you should be shot before you accidentally reproduce.
>>37957146
I wouldnt drink soda because of the acid. I have experimentes with adding a couple of teaspoons of sugar to water
>>37949276
literally zero
>>37957075
>Sugar makes you fat! Fructose gets converted to fat in the liver!
>All these people on high-sugar diets look like they have AIDS/coming out of Auschwitz, see how unhealthy it is!
This is your brain on low-carb
>>37949276
I'm pretty sure they don't "recommend". They say if you're gonna eat sugar, only eat this much.
>>37957075
Yes bro you need to eat 22 pounds of fruit everyday to survive bro uhuh
So. Guys. I gotta ask y'all a question about sugar.
Can your body tell the difference between added, manufactured sugar and sugar that comes from shit like apples? In other words, does your body react differently to fructose than it does to sucrose?
Bumping wich wite wice
>>37952282
the only b8 better is masterb8
>>37957235
Sucrose is glucose + fructose, and all fruits contain sucrose, fructose and glucose. The sugars in raw fruits and vegetables are generally digested a little more slowly because they are contained in chunks and cells that have to be broken down. Whether the speed of absorption really matters a whole lot in terms of health is at the core of the sugar controversy. The other controversy is about fructose (both free and as part of sucrose).
>>37949252
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
Fructose is fucking terrible for you.
Glucose is the shit.
>>37956922
RDI for sugar differs vastly from the RDI of carbs.
>>37957012
Nice red herring, but the other anon was measuring based on daily needs. And according to this measurement ice cream is a low fat high sugar food item.
>>37957563
I really tried my hardest not to reply to this silliness but here you go.
According to these meme calculations, butter is a low-fat item because 1 gram of butter only supplies 0.8 grams of fat. Wow, that's a crazy low amount. And 1 gram of ice cream has even less, so it is a super-low-fat food. Amazing!
>>37957661
>discourse assumes 100g portion sizes because nobody ever just eats 1g of butter or ice cream
Nice fallacy mate.
>>37957460
Thanks m9. I cut my sugar intake a few years ago when I initially lost my weight (~270 to current 178), but I only really cut ADDED sugar. I still eat fruit, and I fucking LOVE me some sweet peas.
Diabetes runs in my family, so I'm trying to get it down all together, added or otherwise.
>>37957701
So people eat 100g of butter? Alrighty then.
>>37957703
Sugar does not cause diabetes though, that's the point. Fat, animal products and obesity cause diabetes.
>>37949252
There is nothing worse than some asshole who defines his superiority over everyone by his diet. I can even handle better some fatass trying to tell me what I am doing is wrong, at least it's already confirmed he's delusional. But some fapjack trying to act like he's hot shit because he lifts weights and doesn't eat sugar? fuck of loser.
Retards can argue all they want about how fructose is shit, how glucose and any other kind of sugar is that and that. Of course if you eat a shit ton of fruit you're gonna be obese.
The important stuff comes with the glycemic index. This is mostly why people prefer eating apples or oranges or whatever fruit or vegetable instead of eating bread or ice cream. Now if you can shut your brain and stop hunger then eat whatever you want.
Why is this important? Because bigger glycemic peaks means more insuline, and insuline it's the main anabolic hormone in our body.
When it comes to weight it's mostly calories in and out but it's a bit more complex and relative when it comes to having a low bf and staying healthy.
>>37957792
>So people eat 100g of butter? Alrighty then.
The brainlet is still missing the point ;^)
>>37957792
>Sugar does not cause diabetes though, that's the point. Fat, animal products and obesity cause diabetes.
Vegan moron detected
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/257108.php
>>37957792
Diabetes is caused because we lacked the insuline to lower our glycemia to normal levels. Diets high in fat and obesity are related but they are not the cause of diabetes.
Eating lots of fat will give you hepatic steatosis and atherosclerosis. Obesity is caused because we eat more of what we use, and insuline has a main role here, which means sugars and tons of food.
>>37952688
Mt Lofty!? Fuck, Adelaide is relevant for once. Who is this guy? Looks like the Channel 7 weather guy
>>37957792
>Sugar does not cause diabetes though, that's the point. Fat, animal products and obesity cause diabetes.
Wwwweewwww lad. Almost fell for that one.
>>37957845
The 90s called, they want their meme science back
>>37957865
>ROBERT LUSTIG, THE PAPER'S SENIOR AUTHOR
Holy shit, this thread is getting to fucking funny at this point.
>>37957900
Dietary fat impairs insulin sensitivity, we already know the pathways so there is really not much to discuss. You can inject glucose directly into your vein every day and will not develop diabetes because somebody without diabetes can handle physiological glucose loads indefinitely until the end of his life. Glucose/insulin does not cause diabetes, that makes about as much sense as breathing causes pneumonia or thinking causes dementia.
>>37957860
You are missing the point. If your allowance for fat is 30% of calories, a 50%-from-fat food moves you above that goal with every spoon you eat and you have to compensate by eating low-fat foods (<30% from fat) at other points. Therefore it is high-fat.
Sugar is a carbohydrate and carbohydrate intake should be at least 60%. Therefore 50% calories from sugar is low-sugar, or moderate-sugar at best when following a low-carb diet. A high-carb food is pasta, a high-sugar food is a ripe banana or some wine gum candy. A fucking donut or an ice cream is not high-sugar, it's just a bunch of grease
>>37957703
The things with fruit is its much harder to over eat fruit than it is products that have added sugar. An apples got like 70 calories and can you leave you feeling pretty satiated. Half a can of coke has the same calories and is just liquid.
>>37949276
For the last time,
IT'S NOT ABOUT HOW MUCH YOU EAT, IT'SS ABOUT WHERE YOU GET IT FROM.
50g of sugar from fruit or 50g of sugar from candy, although technically identical, will vary hugely because of fiber and phyto nutrients
>>37949252
The 'carbs v no carbs' debate is just like the 'conservative v liberal' debate: Posturing retards on either side who are so fucking stupid that, far from not being able to recognize a false dilemma, can ONLY think in dichotomous terms.
>>37958112
>You can inject glucose directly into your vein every day and will not develop diabetes because somebody without diabetes can handle physiological glucose loads indefinitely until the end of his life.
Not really. You will develop tolerance and resistance, and eventually you won't be able to sustain it. Half of the people, if not all, have the genetic predisposition. Obesity is a factor but not a requirement. I've seen many people with decent weight and body fat with type 2 diabetes
>>37958112
That meme science is valid and it's used by many medics around the world. It's esencially the key table to talk about diet in obese/DM patients.
This is what happens when people without a clue about physiology and pharmacology read studies and pretent they know shit about it, when they don't even know how to use them.
>>37958138
This
50g of sugar contains the same amount of energy no matter where it comes from, it's just more difficult to eat 50g of natural sugar and it takes longer to digest.
>>37958112
Kekkekekekekekek you're painful.
>>37958138
50g of sugar from fruit is virtually identical to a pound of spinach with 50g of sugar sprinkled on top. The only difference is that a fruit is a portable all-in-one package that can be eaten raw, often without utensils. Yet anti-sugar clowns want you to believe that spinach with a pile of sugar on top will give you diabetes/cancer/obesity, but 3 bananas somehow will not. It's just fucking sugar, body doesn't care whether you piled it on your spinach or ate a fruit. We bred these fruits to be high in sugar so they supply more energy.
Refined sugar is just refined energy, it basically lets you turn anything into a fruit by pouring it on top.
>>37958112
>You are missing the point
Every reply established a different method of defining high/low ratios of fat/sugar. If you are going to keep coming with new ways of measuring you lose due to inconsistency.
See >>37952607 who established the method this thread is using.
>Yes it is. The baseline is human nutrient requirements
Unfortunately your new method is fallacious. If ice cream is ~50/50 fat and sugar it doesn't mean that you will fill out your fat RDI faster. Since sugar has a lower absolute gram goal, the 50/50 food item will fill your sugar RDI before satisfying your fat RDI.
It appears to me that you don't really differentiate between relative and absolute numbers.
Cheers
>>37958204
you're retarded
>>37958204
>I am painfully ignorant about the digestive system.
>>37958204
>fruits are defined by the amount of sugar they have
>>>/fit/
... oh wait
>>37949276
Thats 25g of added sugar, fruit n shit doesn't apply here. Also thats a max, not a reccomendation.
>>37958199
>Not really.
Yes really, because we literally evolved to be able to shift between energy substrates as they become available. You don't become resistant to insulin by being exposed to insulin, this is just pure momscience that has no basis in fact. You don't become to resistant to hormones or any other substance simply by being exposed to it, that's not how the body works, you know. That makes no sense. According to this grand theory of hormone resistance, we should all be resistant to everything our body produces by age 30 because we've been exposed to it for so long. This is making my head spin
>That meme science is valid and it's used by many medics around the world. It's esencially the key table to talk about diet in obese/DM patients.
Both the insulin hypothesis and the relevance of GI have been disproved a million times over and only the most desperate of retards still cling to it.
>>37949494
Only if you're italian
>>37958205
The vast majority of expert organization do not set either a goal or limit for sugar because sugar is simply a carbohydrate so everything that applies to carbohydrates applies to sugar.
The clown just picked the one organizations that says you can only consume X grams of sugar in a day and ran with it. He actually had to construct a completely new set of dietary guidelines by combining guidelines from two distinct expert organizations to make his case. That's quite a feat, and so silly that I did not bother to respond.
You've also somehow set the arbitrary standard that a food cannot be high in fat and high in sugar at the same time. If I combine high levels of arsenic, cyanide and mercury in a single pill, is it only high in whatever it is highest in? No, it would be high in all 3 at the same time. A food could just barely classify as high-fat high-sugar if it was 40% calories from fat and 60% calories from sugar. Most junk food is 50% calories from fat or more, therefore high-fat and not high-sugar.
>>37958289
And yet you claim fat gives you diabetes.
>>37958112
>Glucose/insulin does not cause diabetes
nigga you might actually be retarded
>>37958363
>40% of calories from sugar isn't high
Fucking hell.
>>37958289
>You don't become resistant
Yes you do. I'm guessing you're trolling or you don't have a clue about how we work. We have tons of receptors to almost every sustance known, like drugs, insuline and glucose. The cells actually begin to hide those receptors after being exposed to the sustance for a long time and good ammount. This is why stuff like caffeine doesn't work at the same dosage after a while. Same happens with insuline and happens with almost every single thing in the world. Even lifting, browsing /fit/ and sex.
Like I said, that meme science is still being used as pillar in DM treatment. I haven't seen a single read about being disproved.
>>37958363
>The vast majority of expert organization do not set either a goal or limit for sugar because sugar is simply a carbohydrate so everything that applies to carbohydrates applies to sugar.
Show me an official statement which reinforces this notion. If carbs and sugar share the same rules nobody could eat over 25g of carbs per day.
>you can only consume X grams of sugar in a day and ran with it
It is a official guideline from an health association. What are you on about? If this guideline is false, please show a valid rebuttal.
>You've also somehow set the arbitrary standard that a food cannot be high in fat and high in sugar at the same time
The standard set was to measure how efficient a certain food item is at filling up your RDIs. Since different macros have different RDIs a ~50/50 item can never increase more than 1 RDI at the same rate by definition.
Ice cream is high fat
So is whole milk
Both dairy
You people are retards
You think GOMAD is for the carbs?!?!?!
>>37949252
Google "sugar addiction". It's a real thing.
>>37958501
Of course youre addicted to it. Carbs are the brain and bodies main fuel source.
>>37958112
>ROBERT LUSTIG BAD
Where the fuck did this meme come from? He a perfectly credible doctor.
The only criticism I hear is from fruititarian morons that think anyone who says "50% of your daily calories should not come from candy" is paid off by splenda.
FAT MAKES U FAT
YOU CAN AUTOPSY A FAT PERSON AND SEE WHAT FOODS IT EATS FROM THE DEPOSITS ALONE
DE NOVO LIPOGENESIS
CARB UP OR DIE SENPAI
>>37958524
sugar is carbs, carbs are not sugar
>>37949252
Who the hell puts sugar on cereal?
>>37951985
400+ km a week. That's pretty good. I do 130+ a week for commuting and errands and Normie's think that's impressive kek
>>37958586
Thats some Jew shit. Like the holy trinity.
Eat your sugar and carbs, boys. Don't you want to get big and strong?
>>37958178
an insightful post on 4chan? now I've seen everything
Sugar is just highly concentrated cane sugar water extracted from sugar canes.
Eating naturally occurring sugar in source is hard to do to an unhealthy degree. Plus when you eat less sugary things your sensitivity goes up, so you can only enjoy natural sugar levels and you're repelled by the processed shit in any candy.
>>37949276
Thats actually less than a can of coke.
Aussie nutrition reccommends no more than 90g daily. Then again we are the 2nd fattest nation in the world.
>>37960953
The traditional Australian diet is kind of a mess in general. It's an effective diet when you're a nation with a very high general exercise level and a lot of labour-intensive jobs. It's a clusterfuck once everyone starts sitting behind a desk during the week and watching footy instead of playing it.
>>37960973
Tfw bunnings dont do their snags on multigrain
>>37949252
congrats on being chronically carb depeted and insulin sensitive enough not to get NASH/NAFLD?
>>37958606
That's how I ate special-K as a child. In retrospect it's amazing that I was never fat.
>>37949494
If u want a heart attack
so should i eat saturated fat or processed carbs
>mfw worked in the health industry for over 10 years
>mfw people finally getting that fat doesnt equal bad
>>37961136
But it is still agreed upon that saturated fats SHOULDN'T be eaten in excess right? Or not even at half of the RDI?
>>37960973
You fucks and your tasty meat pies
>>37957792
Insufficient insulin production/the destruction of insulin producing cells in the pancreas COUPLED WITH EXCESSIVE GLUCOSE IN THE BLOODSTREAM leads to diabetes. lrn2science.
>>37957845
Not discrediting your stuff, but for non-diabetic people, there's no real reason to concern yourself with the GI of food. So long as you've got a healthy pancreas, it'll sort it all out.
On the whole, people have been eating less fat and more sugar since about the 1970s. On the whole, obesity has been on the rise.
I'm not saying sugar causes you to get fat. It's just that the kinds of foods that contain a lot of sugar are exactly the kinds of foods that are easy to overeat. In part because of the sugar content, and in part because they're often manufactured foods tested on focus groups to have just the right texture, mouth feel, bliss point, and vanishing caloric density. In nature, sugar is rare enough in large doses. So the fact that the brain is wired to make you feel FAN FUCKING TASTIC when you eat it isn't a problem there. But now it's cheap and everywhere.
There are lots of people who have a bad to no real idea about what's REALLY healthy. Most people on this site have some idea, but out there, it's very different. These people are extremely susceptible to the marketing onslaught they face via the tv and in supermarkets. Many of them think eating healthy means buying organic vegetables and whole grain-looking special K products.
>>37957460
>contained in chunks and cells that have to be broken down
>>37957460
GI is bullshit
sugar doesn't cause diabetes is like saying it doesn't cause cavities
>>37961420
>On the whole, people have been eating less fat and more sugar since about the 1970s. On the whole, obesity has been on the rise.
People have actually been eating more fat and more sugar, more meat, more cheese and more oil, more added fat, and in the last decade also more butter, egg consumption is unchanged, ice cream is down a massive 10%! I like how people just believe whatever shit they hear on the internet with no regard for facts. The American diet is among the highest-fat diets of any society on the planet, both in absolute and relative terms. Sugar consumption is up 20% since the 70s, so that explains everything, oh ok.
>>37961780
I know and I agree
>>37949252
>hurrrr processed sugar is bad
ftfy
Now I feel bad for eating two big ass Eve apples today
>>37961420
>>37962228
>I like how people just believe whatever shit they hear on the internet with no regard for facts.
I like how you don't back your """"facts"""" up.
>>37961084
Why wuld this give him a heart attack? Olive oil is liquid at body temperature
>>37952282
This is objectively incorrect. Obesity trends in the United States *directly* correlate with the increasing amounts of added sugar we've been using in our foods over the past several decades.
And again, "sugar addiction" is actually a real thing that has been studied. Sugar acts on your brain in much the same way heroin does, creating a dependency that causes you to crave more and more of it. And this will literally cause you to experience withdrawal symptoms if you stop. (Ketofags refer to this as "the keto flu").
>>37949252
yeah it is unhealthy, durian rider is TWAT, POURING HALF A FUCKING BAG OF IT ON CEREAL....this fucking guy
>tfw vegans are turning on him :)
as a vegan fuck this guy
>tfw people literally mock you for avoiding soda and telling them how bad it is
>>37964136
thought keto flu was due to electrolytes problem
okay wait, sugar's bad for you; the most you can have in a day is like 90g; then isn't GOMAD bad for you because of all that sugar?
>>37958204
>>37952282
>>37952445
you have fundamental misunderstandings about nutrition and the human body
>>37967263
not all sugars are equal. There's a reason that white sugar and junk food and all that is referred to as refined sugars, because they are slightly different than naturally occurring sugars such as fructose and lactose. Fructose and lactose are slightly easier on the body and are metabolized differently. 90g of lactose is better for you than 90g of refined white sugar because it's metabolized differently
>>37967064
it is.
the whole "withdrawl symptoms" thing is bunk. your brain uses endogenous opiates and whatnot to do reward shit. endogenous, meaning the shit's already in your brain. cocaine and heroin control that stuff exogenously, i.e. with stuff from outisde your body.
on the other hand, fat people have broken mitochondria that run on glucose even when sedentary (thin people mostly run on fat when sedentary and have good mitochondrial flexibility so they can switch back and forth easily) shit sucks if you suddenly cut glucose from your diet. blood sigar drops and you start craving food. particularly sweets while your body struggles to make glucose from acetone and protein. takes months to work it out sometimes. esp. if you cjeat on your keto diet.
