If DeSantis wins

[Cheetodust]

It's just a rule of thumb that if you see enriched something on the package, it's probably not too good for you. That's all I ever meant by it.

And you're still wrong. Is it as good? Maybe, maybe not. Is it bad for you? No. It literally just means vitamins and minerals have been added. The fact that you are saying it's probably not good for you really shoots your whole "I just follow the science" shite out of the water though doesn't it?

Yeah, go back through my posts because it all started from this post where I said sugar is basically poison. Yes, I probably have used carbs too derogatory in some of my posts because most people's carb intake comes from sugars.

We can read the fucking things you've posted!

Carbs in general are supposed to be eaten in low quantities

Carbs in general. Not sugar. Carbs in general. What happened is you made very definitve statements that made you look like a tit, and rather than admit you were wrong you're trying to pretend you said something far more vague than what we can all see you said.

snip

Fuck this, I'm not wasting time going through this point by fucking point like I did last time. The three main things you're saying in this post are
1.)You never argued for eliminating carbs. Which you did. I've shown that again.

2.)You never advocated intermittent fasting. You literally said:

You should have a window of where you eat all your food for the day and doing the standard 3 meals a day does not fit in that window.

That is intermittent fasting. You say we should eat at a schedule where humans historically ate? Which point in history? The bronze age? The renaissance? The industrial revolution? "Historically" is a long fucking time with serious variation. You're talking shit to avoid the fact that you don't know what you're talking about.

The fry is probably not being fried in a healthy oil and frying stuff adds a ton of calories to the food. Eating fries fried in healthy oil occasionally is fine but eating them daily for lunch from your fast food place of choice is really bad for you.

What's an unhealthy oil? Rapeseed? There's no conclusive evidence that seed or vegetable oils are any worse, the only reason you think they are is someone said it and you believed it without looking any further into it.

I've said this several times now, people don't read/know most recommendations.

Your entire point was that the recommendations were bad. The only reason this conversation is happening at all is because you brought up these recommendations to discredit covid information. That is fully and entirely the only reason that dietary guidelines are being discussed at all in a thread about Ron DeSantis. The fact that people misinterpreted the guidelines has nothing to do with whether or not the guidelines were good or bad.

But what they do know is that it has been messaged for 50+ years that fats are bad for you. That's why you have people eating tons more sugars because they were told it was better than fat and food companies were also "forced" to remove the fat and food tastes like cardboard if you do that and then sugar was added to like everything in place of fat.

The guidelines said sugar was bad! Do you actually know what point you're trying to make anymore or are you just that terrified of admitting you were wrong?

Eating fats vs sugars will regulate the hormones dictate hunger/appetite so you'll end up intaking more calories from a diet high in sugars than a diet high fats because you're eating more food on the high sugar diet.

Protein has been shown in studies to be the most satiating of the three macronutrients. It also has the highest thermic effect. It takes less than a cup of fat to be in a calorie surplus for the average person.

Do meats have the most overall nutritional value than any other type of food? That's all I was saying that I heard is true.

You heard it's true? I thought you only follow the science?

Where did I say to eat like no carbs? Again, I may be too derogatory overall to carbs and when I mean carbs, I'm mainly referring to sugars.

Carbs in general are supposed to be eaten in low quantities

As you can go back in this thread and that where it started from me saying sugar is poison.

No it started with you saying dietary guidelines were bullshit. The dietary guidelines also say to restrict sugar intake.

The people that are unhealthy and obese that have excess fat, how are they supposed to get rid of the fat without ketosis?

Look, there is genuinely nothing wrong with not knowing this stuff but stop acting like you do. Google the sliding filament theory if you want to read more but in essence in order for a muscle to contract your body breaks down ATP. Every time your muscles contract they need ATP. So when it's used it needs to be replenished. The three ways your body recovers ATP are phosphocreatine, carbs and fats. The intensity and duration of activity will determine which source is used primarily but ultimately they are all used to some degree. Ketosis is when your body stops using carbs and only uses fat because you have no carb intake and no stored carbs to use. Lipolysis is the process of breaking down fat to use as energy and ketosis is not a prerequisite for lypolisis. Man, people have lost fat eating carbs. Like that's just not a thing I should have to explain.

Where did I say a perfectly healthy person needs to switch to burning fats for energy vs carbs?

You didn't explicitly say that because you don't know enough about the subject to know that's what you were saying.

I wouldn't say I'm advocating for some kind of fasting that's against the standard human diet for most of our history. Where is there historical relevance that humans normally ate 3 meals a day? I'm just advocating for whatever fasting is normal. I don't even know what intermittent fasting technically is (as in how much fasting it actually entails).

Again what history? Our diets have been wildly different at various points in time and geography. You said we should eat al of our meals in a specific window. That is intermittent fasting.

I literally just do 2 meals a day (a small lunch meal and normal dinner meal) because that's when I'm actually hungry vs following what some guy said. I doubt that's considered intermittent fasting.

And I eat about 6 times a day between the hours of 6am and 9pm. What's your point?

Eating real foods of your choice and eating 2 meals a day is EXTREMELY RESTRICTING?

That's not what you said though. That's just what you're trying to pretend you said.

You have that healthy carb to sugar carb ratio way off for what is apart of the standard American diet. We've gone from eating 2 pounds a sugar a year not too long ago to eating 152 pounds of a sugar a year.

The specific numbers were irrelevant. I agree sugar should be incredibly restricted. You equated carbs to sugar. The numbers were just to point out that yes, if you consume less sugar you will in fact consume less carbs. That doesn't prove carbs in general should be restricted.

That's why I said making a strong and sound argument...

If we as humans historically did not eat 3 meals a day, then we are biologically not used to eating in that manner.

So what?

I'm willing to bet that eating at a similar schedule as humans historically ate food at is a pretty good starting baseline for most people.

Bronze age, renaissance or industrial revolution?

Obesity is a symptom of insulin resistance.

No it isn't. You can keep saying it but it isn't. Obesity is 100% caused by consuming more calories than you burn and that excess energy is stored as fat in the body.

BMI is how you determine obesity, not just if the person is overweight.

My bodyfat is 17% (within healthy range for a 32 yo man). I have a 30 inch waist at 5'11". My BMI is 28. According to my BMI I am overweight bordering on obese. BMI is just a measure of weight relative to height. It is not a measurement of bodyfat. You calculate BMI by using your height and weight. Some more complex versions will use age, gender and activity levels but none of them use a bodyfat measurement. To say BMI determines obesity not weight seriously shows that on a fundamental level you do not understand a single thing you are talking about.

Skinny fat people are still obese.

You fully don't even know the fundamentals of what you're talking about. Just stop. Seriously.

You're acting like scientists arguing that sugar is bad is some recent thing.

I'm literally saying that the dietary guidelines always said sugar should be greatly restricted compared to fats. So no. I'm not acting like that at all. You are acting like that. You are the one saying that guidelines recommended sugar over fats. Because here's the thing you realise that dairy, meat, nuts and seeds are all sources of fats right? Like if you look at the food pyramid fats are represented far far more than sugar is.

Also, I literally have done exactly what I've said for last like 9 months or so and lost probably around 50 pounds (I really don't know what my weight was when I started nor what it is now as I only weigh myself very occasionally) as I'm down from 42 pants to 34s. And, never once have I not eaten when I was hungry or had really any kind of struggle sticking to my diet. I just eat real food and eat when I'm hungry and that has been really it.

And I never said that what you described wouldn't help lose weight. What I said was you lose weight because of a calorie deficit. It doesn't matter what combination of macronutrients you eat weight is entirely about energy balance. Also to be clear you lost close to an average of 1.3lbs per week. If you went keto like you've described a couple of pounds are a reduction in stored glycogen and water. But ignoring that you're talking roughly a 650kcal deficit per day. Around what would be expected by skipping breakfast and eating a small lunch of a banana and soup like you described. As a piece of general advice keep your protein intake up.

Because removing all the ridiculous amounts of sugar the average diet will, in essence, greatly reduce carb intake.

And as I've shown multiple times your carb intake is likely going to be more than twice your fat intake. Funny how you asked for a source that we always ate relatively high carbs and I provided that and you ignored it. And then I explained mathematically how it just makes sense that gram for gram our carb intake would be higher than our fat intake and you ignore that too.

All I've said is that sugar is bad for you, that pretty much every study says, so what nonsense have I actually said?

No. What you said was dietary guidelines were bad and wrong. Even though, at best you have shown people misinterpreted guidelines and the guidelines themselves were fine. And you said that carbs should be "in general eaten in low quantities". Are you seriously this incapable of admitting you said this and it was wrong.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

And you're still wrong. Is it as good? Maybe, maybe not. Is it bad for you? No. It literally just means vitamins and minerals have been added. The fact that you are saying it's probably not good for you really shoots your whole "I just follow the science" shite out of the water though doesn't it?


We can read the fucking things you've posted!


Carbs in general. Not sugar. Carbs in general. What happened is you made very definitve statements that made you look like a tit, and rather than admit you were wrong you're trying to pretend you said something far more vague than what we can all see you said.

Fuck this, I'm not wasting time going through this point by fucking point like I did last time. The three main things you're saying in this post are
1.)You never argued for eliminating carbs. Which you did. I've shown that again.

2.)You never advocated intermittent fasting. You literally said:
That is intermittent fasting. You say we should eat at a schedule where humans historically ate? Which point in history? The bronze age? The renaissance? The industrial revolution? "Historically" is a long fucking time with serious variation. You're talking shit to avoid the fact that you don't know what you're talking about.

What's an unhealthy oil? Rapeseed? There's no conclusive evidence that seed or vegetable oils are any worse, the only reason you think they are is someone said it and you believed it without looking any further into it.

Your entire point was that the recommendations were bad. The only reason this conversation is happening at all is because you brought up these recommendations to discredit covid information. That is fully and entirely the only reason that dietary guidelines are being discussed at all in a thread about Ron DeSantis. The fact that people misinterpreted the guidelines has nothing to do with whether or not the guidelines were good or bad.

The guidelines said sugar was bad! Do you actually know what point you're trying to make anymore or are you just that terrified of admitting you were wrong?

Protein has been shown in studies to be the most satiating of the three macronutrients. It also has the highest thermic effect. It takes less than a cup of fat to be in a calorie surplus for the average person.

You heard it's true? I thought you only follow the science?





No it started with you saying dietary guidelines were bullshit. The dietary guidelines also say to restrict sugar intake.

Look, there is genuinely nothing wrong with not knowing this stuff but stop acting like you do. Google the sliding filament theory if you want to read more but in essence in order for a muscle to contract your body breaks down ATP. Every time your muscles contract they need ATP. So when it's used it needs to be replenished. The three ways your body recovers ATP are phosphocreatine, carbs and fats. The intensity and duration of activity will determine which source is used primarily but ultimately they are all used to some degree. Ketosis is when your body stops using carbs and only uses fat because you have no carb intake and no stored carbs to use. Lipolysis is the process of breaking down fat to use as energy and ketosis is not a prerequisite for lypolisis. Man, people have lost fat eating carbs. Like that's just not a thing I should have to explain.

You didn't explicitly say that because you don't know enough about the subject to know that's what you were saying.

Again what history? Our diets have been wildly different at various points in time and geography. You said we should eat al of our meals in a specific window. That is intermittent fasting.

And I eat about 6 times a day between the hours of 6am and 9pm. What's your point?

That's not what you said though. That's just what you're trying to pretend you said.

The specific numbers were irrelevant. I agree sugar should be incredibly restricted. You equated carbs to sugar. The numbers were just to point out that yes, if you consume less sugar you will in fact consume less carbs. That doesn't prove carbs in general should be restricted.

So what?

Bronze age, renaissance or industrial revolution?

No it isn't. You can keep saying it but it isn't. Obesity is 100% caused by consuming more calories than you burn and that excess energy is stored as fat in the body.

My bodyfat is 17% (within healthy range for a 32 yo man). I have a 30 inch waist at 5'11". My BMI is 28. According to my BMI I am overweight bordering on obese. BMI is just a measure of weight relative to height. It is not a measurement of bodyfat. You calculate BMI by using your height and weight. Some more complex versions will use age, gender and activity levels but none of them use a bodyfat measurement. To say BMI determines obesity not weight seriously shows that on a fundamental level you do not understand a single thing you are talking about.

You fully don't even know the fundamentals of what you're talking about. Just stop. Seriously.


I'm literally saying that the dietary guidelines always said sugar should be greatly restricted compared to fats. So no. I'm not acting like that at all. You are acting like that. You are the one saying that guidelines recommended sugar over fats. Because here's the thing you realise that dairy, meat, nuts and seeds are all sources of fats right? Like if you look at the food pyramid fats are represented far far more than sugar is.

And I never said that what you described wouldn't help lose weight. What I said was you lose weight because of a calorie deficit. It doesn't matter what combination of macronutrients you eat weight is entirely about energy balance. Also to be clear you lost close to an average of 1.3lbs per week. If you went keto like you've described a couple of pounds are a reduction in stored glycogen and water. But ignoring that you're talking roughly a 650kcal deficit per day. Around what would be expected by skipping breakfast and eating a small lunch of a banana and soup like you described. As a piece of general advice keep your protein intake up.

And as I've shown multiple times your carb intake is likely going to be more than twice your fat intake. Funny how you asked for a source that we always ate relatively high carbs and I provided that and you ignored it. And then I explained mathematically how it just makes sense that gram for gram our carb intake would be higher than our fat intake and you ignore that too.

No. What you said was dietary guidelines were bad and wrong. Even though, at best you have shown people misinterpreted guidelines and the guidelines themselves were fine. And you said that carbs should be "in general eaten in low quantities". Are you seriously this incapable of admitting you said this and it was wrong.

Again, in the US, when you see something has enriched whatever, it has a great chance of being food with very little nutritional value, and a sign of overprocessed/refined food.

My fault, I either got a bit overboard with carbs are bad there or was more so just associating carbs as sugar there.

I don't feel what is then considered intermittent fasting is anything that is historically out of the norm. Doing what our bodies have be tuned for over hundred thousands of years is probably the best course as even something we've been doing for say 500 years is extremely recent and our bodies wouldn't have evolved and adjusted to that obviously.

Breakfast, lunch and dinner: Have we always eaten them?

Most British people have been brought up on three square meals a day, but it wasn't always that way.

www.bbc.com

There is this study. And anything that we start ingesting in much larger amounts than ever before is probably going to have bad results. Isn't eating lots of fried foods generally bad for you already anyway?

Use of dietary linoleic acid for secondary prevention of coronary heart disease and death: evaluation of recovered data from the Sydney Diet Heart Study and updated meta-analysis

Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of replacing dietary saturated fat with omega 6 linoleic acid, for the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease and death. Design Evaluation of recovered data from the Sydney Diet Heart Study, a single blinded, parallel group, randomized controlled...

www.bmj.com

The general overarching guidelines are bad from the old food pyramid (that I posted) to the whole fat=bad sugar=good messaging for 50+ years, which are the 2 main things I brought up. You'll find in tons of nutrition articles that saturated fats are bad and cholesterol in foods is bad. Don't you remember the whole egg controversy when they are one of the healthiest foods to eat? My mom's doctor even told her to limit eggs a few years back and I told her that didn't make any sense.

I heard that you can live only off meat longer than anything else. It's not something I really care about or anything I'm pushing, I just read/heard it somewhere and it makes basic logical sense to be true. I never cared enough to actually look into it.

Why is recommending just reducing carbs as much as possible for like a week or two to help someone get started losing weight bad advice? That's all I ever said. I didn't say anyone outside of that initial period do like an Atkins diet or Carnivore diet, I've said numerous times that I don't think having people do specific diets is that helpful overall. Cutting out all the excess sugars is needed though.

Why do you keep talking down to someone for literally no reason? Why would one need to know tons about a subject to know a healthy person doesn't need to change their diet? It's the basic saying of don't fix what's not broken.

I've always said the 2 meals a day and eat real foods for pages here? The whole Keep It Simple Stupid (KISS) method.

Sugar gets converted to fat when you go over the amount of sugar your body can handle at one time (which isn't a lot).

My fault, I thought BMI was the body fat percentage measurement vs just the weight/height measurement. Skinny fat people may not be technically obese but they have the visceral fat that is very bad for you.

The original food pyramid that I originally posted has sugar and fat at the very top at the same level, that is a joke. So no, sugars have not been always recommended to be eaten less than fats.

Oh, I'm pretty sure I eat enough meat because like I said, I'm not at all a veggie person. My breakfasts were never big or normal because like I said, I'm never hungry in the morning so my calorie loss from that is lower than a normal breakfast. I also pretty much completely cut out fried foods as I would eat way too much deep fried stuff like fries or chicken strips. I'm sure once I do need to eat more calories, I'll have more hunger and thus eat more.

 

[Cheetodust]

Again, in the US, when you see something has enriched whatever, it has a great chance of being food with very little nutritional value, and a sign of overprocessed/refined food.

Processed is a broad term. Enriched just means added nutrients. To say natural sources are likely better is true. To say something like almond milk enriched with additional b12 is "bad for you" is foolish.

My fault, I either got a bit overboard with carbs are bad there or was more so just associating carbs as sugar there.

Then why did you specifically say carbs in general?

I don't feel what is then considered intermittent fasting is anything that is historically out of the norm. Doing what our bodies have be tuned for over hundred thousands of years is probably the best course as even something we've been doing for say 500 years is extremely recent and our bodies wouldn't have evolved and adjusted to that obviously.

Breakfast, lunch and dinner: Have we always eaten them?

Most British people have been brought up on three square meals a day, but it wasn't always that way.

www.bbc.com

First of all, this is you:

This is why I don't trust what someone says (regardless of reputation or credentials) unless they have data and logic to back up what they actually say.

But all you're doing is proving that all your beliefs on diet and nutrition are based on things you heard somewhere and sounds about right to you. That article you shared shows one thing, meal times and quantities have changed drastically over time. You keep saying things about how we ate "historically" but we haven't eaten in a uniform way "historically". You think in the stone age we sat down for scheduled meal times? Do you think they were the same meal times when agriculture developed? Do you think it was the same in countries where there's longer nights and shorter days? In Ireland we get daylight from about 5am to 10pm in the summer and from about 8am to 4pm in the winter. You think historically our meal times were the same all year round? You're perfectly welcome to believe that intermittent fasting is the way our ancestors did it if you'd like but don't pretend that your views on nutrition are following the science

There is this study.

The issue with epidemiological studies like this is that they have little control. We know that the group that substituted did have increased rates of all cause mortality. But we also know that " Controls received no specific dietary instruction or study foods. All non-dietary aspects were designed to be equivalent in both groups." It's hard to state that linoleic acid was the cause.

And here's a meta analysis that shows the opposite

Dietary Linoleic Acid and Risk of Coronary Heart Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Prospective Cohort Studies

Background—Previous studies on intake of linoleic acid (LA), the predominant n-6 fatty acid, and coronary heart disease (CHD) risk have generated inconsistent results. We performed a systematic revie

www.ahajournals.org

Now I'm not saying you should just believe this paper either. What I'm saying is what I said, there is no conclusive evidence that seed or nut oils are any worse than animal based fat sources.

And anything that we start ingesting in much larger amounts than ever before is probably going to have bad results.

That's not following the science that's following your feelings. We've been introducing foods from different parts of the world to each other for a very small amount of time. "Historically" the Irish weren't eating potatoes and yet we took to them like the Irish to potatoes.

Isn't eating lots of fried foods generally bad for you already anyway?

Why? If the food itself is healthy and fats are healthy why would frying food be unhealthy? The reason we should limit fried food is the reason I've been giving all this time. Fats are high in calories and easy to consume. Meaning a diet heavy in fried foods is going to be a diet high in calories. This is the reason fats are listed to be used sparingly because sources of pure fat are incredibly high in calories and, as I've said it takes less than a cup to hit 2000 Calories.

The general overarching guidelines are bad from the old food pyramid (that I posted) to the whole fat=bad sugar=good messaging for 50+ years,

Firstly of all, nobody ever messaged that "sugar=good". That's complete nonsense. Sugar was always recommended to be limited. I've pointed this out repeatedly now and I'm getting sick of it. Stop lying.

Secondly:


Here's the food pyramid you shared. Up there are fats, oils and sweets which are all recommended to be used sparingly. Below that are dairy, and meat, poultry fish beans, eggs, nuts. Also known as sources of dietary fat. Would I agree with that 100%? Not really but if you look at the numbers I gave on gram for gram how much carbs you should eat in relation to fats it's not far off. The reason that you're confused is the same reason people have misinterpreted the guidelines. You don't actually know what fat and carbs are. You've mistaken sugar for carbs and pure fat sources for fat and not actually looked at how the three macronutrients make up the foods we eat. Everything we eat is made of fat, carbs and protein.

You'll find in tons of nutrition articles that saturated fats are bad and cholesterol in foods is bad.

You will usually find alarmist articles poorly representing studies that don't really say what the article said or overstate the significance of the findings. The research itself is usually far less alarmist.

Don't you remember the whole egg controversy

I do and it had more to do with the media than any health bodies.

when they are one of the healthiest foods to eat?

What does that even mean? I love eggs. Had 3 for breakfast with some wholegrain bread and about 2 table spoons of butter. But what in Christ's name do you mean "one of the healthiest foods to eat"?

My mom's doctor even told her to limit eggs a few years back and I told her that didn't make any sense.

GP's are twats. No argument here. Injured my back a couple years ago and my GP tried to tell me squatting is bad for your back. He's a twat too.

I heard that you can live only off meat longer than anything else. It's not something I really care about or anything I'm pushing, I just read/heard it somewhere and it makes basic logical sense to be true. I never cared enough to actually look into it.

So you don't just follow the science but you do speak quite confidently about it and that's why I'm calling you out on this shit. See normally you play this game on shit I'm basically on the same level as you on with. I don't know more than the average person about viruses and neither do you. But I do know more than the average person about this. And you don't. But this all started because you wanted to pretend you did and now you have to walk back a lot of the definitive statements you made because it's very fucking clear you don't know what you're talking about.

You can literally look up everything I've said with regards to nutrition, it will all check out.

Remember how confident you were at the start of this journey?

Why is recommending just reducing carbs as much as possible for like a week or two to help someone get started losing weight bad advice? That's all I ever said.

Because it's pointlessly restrictive. Do you know how I lost 25kg? I went vegetarian. I don't really recommend it. It worked for me personally but you would probably struggle with that. Because you wouldn't enjoy it. As a strength coach my scope of practice for dietary advice would be very limited so I wouldn't recommend any elimination diet to anybody. I would offer advice on how energy balance works. No dietician worth a damn would ever recommend just cutting out a macronutrient. Also google keto flu. Many people report very unpleasant symptoms after a few days of little to no carbs. It's not a major health concern but anything that makes a diet harder to stick to means, well, it's going to be harder to stick to. People struggling with weightloss don't need things to be needlessly difficult.

I didn't say anyone outside of that initial period do like an Atkins diet or Carnivore diet, I've said numerous times that I don't think having people do specific diets is that helpful overall. Cutting out all the excess sugars is needed though.

You still gave more advice than me, a qualified trainer/coach, would be comfortable giving out because I'm not a dietician and I know enough to know my scope of practice. You don't and that's why you gave that advice. You're a walking a Dunning-Kruger effect.

Why do you keep talking down to someone for literally no reason?

I'm gonna recommend you reel in that victim complex when you talk to people like this:

Why do you literally disagree with everything I say regardless of your ignorance on the subject?

I'm talking down to you because you're acting like a know it all about a topic you're woefully ignorant on. You're now admitting that you mischaracterised sugar as carbs and have repeatedly said that the things you say about nutrition are just things you heard somewhere that sound about right to you. But you had the cheek to come in here swinging dick about how you just follow the science and you're really knowledgeable. Like even this:

I even know stuff like you're arteries technically don't ever get clogged, it's the walls that expand from cholesterol fixing holes caused by inflammation. And guess what causes inflammation?

Like you just randomly drop some poorly understood nutrition fact to be like "See how smart I am?" I didn't want to bring it up earlier because it genuinely made me embarrassed for you. But let's be clear, you're not upset that I'm talking down to you. Everyone does that. You're upset because you've shown your ass and it's painfully obvious. This can stop you know. Just admit you don't know shit about fuck when it comes to diet and nutrition.

Why would one need to know tons about a subject to know a healthy person doesn't need to change their diet? It's the basic saying of don't fix what's not broken.

What's that got to do with anything? Where'd I say they should? What's a healthy person by the way?

I've always said the 2 meals a day and eat real foods for pages here? The whole Keep It Simple Stupid (KISS) method.

Why? If you're following the science and the research and not just your feelings, why? What's the proven benefit to two meals a day? You weren't just saying 2 meals a day is an easy way to control calorie intake you said breakfast is terrible for us. Again, we can all see you said this. And stop pretending you didn't try to claim carbs are bad.

Sugar gets converted to fat when you go over the amount of sugar your body can handle at one time (which isn't a lot).

Every Calorie you consume ultimately gets converted to fat if it's not used. Seriously, you just do not understand nutrition on even a basic level.

My fault, I thought BMI was the body fat percentage measurement vs just the weight/height measurement. Skinny fat people may not be technically obese but they have the visceral fat that is very bad for you.

Yes because you don't know what you're talking about. Which would be fine if you didn't try to pretend you do. Like if you don't know skinny fat people aren't obese why are you still trying to pretend that you know what you're talking about?

The original food pyramid that I originally posted has sugar and fat at the very top at the same level, that is a joke. So no, sugars have not been always recommended to be eaten less than fats.

Pure fat sources. Not all fat. When you take in all the dietary sources of fat in the pyramid then it is more represented. I have explained several times already that the reason pure fat sources should be very restricted is because of their Calorie density and that that top layer of the pyramid aren't the only source of fats.

 

[Baffle]

Just on the subject of sugar, does anyone remember those dextrose tablets you used to be able to get (you actually still can, they're in the health food section). I used to eat a pack of those, sometimes two, on the way home from school. What a skinny rat of a child I was. Metabolism like a Ferrari.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

EVERY ACCUSATION IS A CONFESSION

 

[Silvanus]

What does that even mean? I love eggs. Had 3 for breakfast with some wholegrain bread and about 2 table spoons of butter. But what in Christ's name do you mean "one of the healthiest foods to eat"?

That is altogether too much butter my man.

 

[Cheetodust]

That is altogether too much butter my man.

It's most of my fat intake for the day. I was actually way undershooting my target and this was the easiest way to add it. It includes the butter I cooked the eggs in.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Snip

Mildly unrelated, do you have an opinion on sugar vs high fructose corn syrup?

 

[Cheetodust]

Mildly unrelated, do you have an opinion on sugar vs high fructose corn syrup?

Honestly it's not a thing in Ireland so I've never actually looked into it beyond all of the "it's really bad for you" you hear in the media. I couldn't give you an answer that wasn't just me quickly googling shit.

 

[Cheetodust]

EVERY ACCUSATION IS A CONFESSION

It's not a secret. Matt Walsh and Tucker Carlson at the very least believe teenagers should be allowed marry and have kids. They admit to supporting grooming.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Mildly unrelated, do you have an opinion on sugar vs high fructose corn syrup?

Anecdotally, a good number of people including myself have a rough time digesting HFCS. Studies are inconclusive because studying the gut is particularly hard. The idea is the that extra fructose in HFCS isn't bonded with glucose like normally found in sucrose and that might cause an issue.

Or it's psychosomatic, but either way I feel better when omitting it as much as possible and regular sugar tastes better.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

EVERY ACCUSATION IS A CONFESSION

The reason for opposing books that teach children about sex or what consent means becomes more and more clear.

 

[Gergar12]

Was I wrong about him?

Opinion | Liberals Should Welcome Ron DeSantis’ Rise

If Trump is a unique threat to democracy, they should be happy to see a GOP alternative who could replace him.

www.politico.com

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Was I wrong about him?

Opinion | Liberals Should Welcome Ron DeSantis’ Rise

If Trump is a unique threat to democracy, they should be happy to see a GOP alternative who could replace him.

www.politico.com

Rich Lowry is editor of National Review

Joke opinion article.

 

[Gergar12]

Joke opinion article.

I don't know if he wins no more Trump, no more civil war, and yes to domestic climate change spending due to him spending 1.5 million dollars more on environmental issues in Florida than the previous governor. We wouldn't be in the Paris climate accord, but we would be abiding by it somewhat, and we wouldn't do unpopular things like paying for other countries' climate damages. Also, it would lower the chance of war since liberal hawks are the most hawkish and they are mostly dems right now, and the reason I am suddenly against wars is due to this by a professor at my former university.

https://www.cato.org/commentary/united-states-does-not-need-contain-china

This suggests that, although there may be little reason to expect collapse as happened to the Soviets nearly two years after Talbott’s essay, it increasingly appears as if China does not really present a significant threat. Insofar as China might be seen to be threatening, efforts from what Talbott called “the outside world” to contain it scarcely seem necessary.

Yay American superpowerdom forever.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Processed is a broad term. Enriched just means added nutrients. To say natural sources are likely better is true. To say something like almond milk enriched with additional b12 is "bad for you" is foolish.


Then why did you specifically say carbs in general?

First of all, this is you:

But all you're doing is proving that all your beliefs on diet and nutrition are based on things you heard somewhere and sounds about right to you. That article you shared shows one thing, meal times and quantities have changed drastically over time. You keep saying things about how we ate "historically" but we haven't eaten in a uniform way "historically". You think in the stone age we sat down for scheduled meal times? Do you think they were the same meal times when agriculture developed? Do you think it was the same in countries where there's longer nights and shorter days? In Ireland we get daylight from about 5am to 10pm in the summer and from about 8am to 4pm in the winter. You think historically our meal times were the same all year round? You're perfectly welcome to believe that intermittent fasting is the way our ancestors did it if you'd like but don't pretend that your views on nutrition are following the science

The issue with epidemiological studies like this is that they have little control. We know that the group that substituted did have increased rates of all cause mortality. But we also know that " Controls received no specific dietary instruction or study foods. All non-dietary aspects were designed to be equivalent in both groups." It's hard to state that linoleic acid was the cause.

And here's a meta analysis that shows the opposite

Dietary Linoleic Acid and Risk of Coronary Heart Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Prospective Cohort Studies

Background—Previous studies on intake of linoleic acid (LA), the predominant n-6 fatty acid, and coronary heart disease (CHD) risk have generated inconsistent results. We performed a systematic revie

www.ahajournals.org

Now I'm not saying you should just believe this paper either. What I'm saying is what I said, there is no conclusive evidence that seed or nut oils are any worse than animal based fat sources.
That's not following the science that's following your feelings. We've been introducing foods from different parts of the world to each other for a very small amount of time. "Historically" the Irish weren't eating potatoes and yet we took to them like the Irish to potatoes.

Why? If the food itself is healthy and fats are healthy why would frying food be unhealthy? The reason we should limit fried food is the reason I've been giving all this time. Fats are high in calories and easy to consume. Meaning a diet heavy in fried foods is going to be a diet high in calories. This is the reason fats are listed to be used sparingly because sources of pure fat are incredibly high in calories and, as I've said it takes less than a cup to hit 2000 Calories.


Firstly of all, nobody ever messaged that "sugar=good". That's complete nonsense. Sugar was always recommended to be limited. I've pointed this out repeatedly now and I'm getting sick of it. Stop lying.

Secondly:
View attachment 7471

Here's the food pyramid you shared. Up there are fats, oils and sweets which are all recommended to be used sparingly. Below that are dairy, and meat, poultry fish beans, eggs, nuts. Also known as sources of dietary fat. Would I agree with that 100%? Not really but if you look at the numbers I gave on gram for gram how much carbs you should eat in relation to fats it's not far off. The reason that you're confused is the same reason people have misinterpreted the guidelines. You don't actually know what fat and carbs are. You've mistaken sugar for carbs and pure fat sources for fat and not actually looked at how the three macronutrients make up the foods we eat. Everything we eat is made of fat, carbs and protein.


You will usually find alarmist articles poorly representing studies that don't really say what the article said or overstate the significance of the findings. The research itself is usually far less alarmist.


I do and it had more to do with the media than any health bodies.

What does that even mean? I love eggs. Had 3 for breakfast with some wholegrain bread and about 2 table spoons of butter. But what in Christ's name do you mean "one of the healthiest foods to eat"?

GP's are twats. No argument here. Injured my back a couple years ago and my GP tried to tell me squatting is bad for your back. He's a twat too.

So you don't just follow the science but you do speak quite confidently about it and that's why I'm calling you out on this shit. See normally you play this game on shit I'm basically on the same level as you on with. I don't know more than the average person about viruses and neither do you. But I do know more than the average person about this. And you don't. But this all started because you wanted to pretend you did and now you have to walk back a lot of the definitive statements you made because it's very fucking clear you don't know what you're talking about.

Remember how confident you were at the start of this journey?


Because it's pointlessly restrictive. Do you know how I lost 25kg? I went vegetarian. I don't really recommend it. It worked for me personally but you would probably struggle with that. Because you wouldn't enjoy it. As a strength coach my scope of practice for dietary advice would be very limited so I wouldn't recommend any elimination diet to anybody. I would offer advice on how energy balance works. No dietician worth a damn would ever recommend just cutting out a macronutrient. Also google keto flu. Many people report very unpleasant symptoms after a few days of little to no carbs. It's not a major health concern but anything that makes a diet harder to stick to means, well, it's going to be harder to stick to. People struggling with weightloss don't need things to be needlessly difficult.

You still gave more advice than me, a qualified trainer/coach, would be comfortable giving out because I'm not a dietician and I know enough to know my scope of practice. You don't and that's why you gave that advice. You're a walking a Dunning-Kruger effect.

I'm gonna recommend you reel in that victim complex when you talk to people like this:

I'm talking down to you because you're acting like a know it all about a topic you're woefully ignorant on. You're now admitting that you mischaracterised sugar as carbs and have repeatedly said that the things you say about nutrition are just things you heard somewhere that sound about right to you. But you had the cheek to come in here swinging dick about how you just follow the science and you're really knowledgeable. Like even this:



Like you just randomly drop some poorly understood nutrition fact to be like "See how smart I am?" I didn't want to bring it up earlier because it genuinely made me embarrassed for you. But let's be clear, you're not upset that I'm talking down to you. Everyone does that. You're upset because you've shown your ass and it's painfully obvious. This can stop you know. Just admit you don't know shit about fuck when it comes to diet and nutrition.


What's that got to do with anything? Where'd I say they should? What's a healthy person by the way?

Why? If you're following the science and the research and not just your feelings, why? What's the proven benefit to two meals a day? You weren't just saying 2 meals a day is an easy way to control calorie intake you said breakfast is terrible for us. Again, we can all see you said this. And stop pretending you didn't try to claim carbs are bad.

Every Calorie you consume ultimately gets converted to fat if it's not used. Seriously, you just do not understand nutrition on even a basic level.

Yes because you don't know what you're talking about. Which would be fine if you didn't try to pretend you do. Like if you don't know skinny fat people aren't obese why are you still trying to pretend that you know what you're talking about?

Pure fat sources. Not all fat. When you take in all the dietary sources of fat in the pyramid then it is more represented. I have explained several times already that the reason pure fat sources should be very restricted is because of their Calorie density and that that top layer of the pyramid aren't the only source of fats.

I told you enriched foods being bad is a rule of thumb, not some blanket statement. They are usually pretty bad for you, at least in America. The definition of enriched foods is literally putting back stuff lost in processing, which is a big hint of food isn't too "real".

Carbs as a word are quite a bit used interchangeably to mean sugars. When you here to lower your carbs, they are referring to sugars vs say eating a potato.

All I said is intermittent fasting sounds pretty normal if it is what you said I've been pushing. Breakfast is a pretty recent concept and skipping it shouldn't be anything out of the ordinary for the human body. There's nothing saying eating breakfast, lunch, and dinner is some baseline standard either.

I understand we know rather little with regards to many things and not to take single studies as any settled science. Introducing people to eating tons of something humans haven't really eaten before and introducing a new vegetable to people (that already eat various other vegetables) are 2 completely different things.

Fried foods have trans fats, which are very bad for you.

Fat was found to be the cause of the increase in heart disease and food companies removed fat, but doing that removes flavor. Guess what adds flavor and doesn't add fat? Sugar. That's why food companies added all this sugar to tons of foods because if they have to cut fat, then they have to add sugar to make it taste good or at least the easiest way. And when the public is told fat is bad, they will buy the stuff with less fat that has, you know, more sugar. That's how added sugars became so prevalent.

How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat (Published 2016)

Newly discovered documents show that the sugar industry paid scientists in the 1960s to shape the debate around heart disease, sugar and fat.

www.nytimes.com

Eating bread in America is bad for you, that's the American food pyramid of what to eat for Americans and eating that much American bread is not good. You said yourself that American bread is really bread.

If it's known that the whole egg thing was alarmist bullshit, then how'd that get around to doctors telling their patients to limit egg consumption?

6 Reasons Why Eggs Are the Healthiest Food on the Planet

Eggs are so nutritious that they're often referred to as "nature's multivitamin." Many studies show that eating eggs regularly can improve health.

www.healthline.com

I said I heard that meat is the most nutritious food, I hardly went into proclaiming it the best food. I said sugar is basically poison, proclaimed that, and still stand by that.

What did I say at that point that hasn't checked out?

How is cutting out something for a week or 2 highly restrictive? It's only to get you off craving foods as much and thus making the long-term diet easier to stick to. I see plenty of friends trying to do some very restrictive diet and they get off it rather soon because it's just too restrictive and they just set themselves up for failure. A friend recently was going to do some extreme fast/cleansing thing and I told her that you don't have to do such extreme things and you're just setting yourself up for failure. I didn't even say to do no carbs for that initial week or two but try your hardest to eliminated them as much as possible. Like I never ate a sandwich or burger without bread as I can't really do the lettuce wrap alternative thing because I don't like lettuce but I have removed half the bread/bun and folded it over only needing the one piece of bread to make the sandwich/burger work. Whereas some can do the lettuce wrap thing but can't give some carb source that I could easily. Do the stuff that makes sense for you, come up with your own diet based on following general guidelines vs something very specific that most likely won't work for you.

People don't really know what Dunning-Kruger effect actually is...

Mysterious is basically a troll and I talk to people as they talk to me. When have I replied to you in an disrespected manner? You've been far more disrespectful to me than I have been to you. I legit want actual conversations unlike most people that post on the internet.

You literally said I didn't have the knowledge to know a healthy person doesn't need to change their diet...

Normal fasting has been shown to provide many health benefits. Breakfast is literally called that because it breaks your fast. Why break your fast just to break it due to some conceived 3-meal structure that you've been told to follow that has no scientific backing? Also, most people's breakfasts are really just filled with sugars. Breakfast is the easiest meal to give up (and most people's worst meals) due to how it's usually your least social meal of the day. Not that breakfast can't work but it's by far the most problematic.

Skinny fat people still get diabetes the same as obese people, obesity is not the thing that puts you on the road to diabetes, which is exactly what you said. Just look into India's skinny fat diabetes problem.

I don't think the food pyramid top part for fats means pure fat sources (it even says in parentheses naturally occurring). Who's eating just the fat of a steak or butter? It's not like the top of the pyramid saying sugar is bad means just pure sugar sources either.

 

[Cheetodust]

I told you enriched foods being bad is a rule of thumb, not some blanket statement. They are usually pretty bad for you, at least in America. The definition of enriched foods is literally putting back stuff lost in processing, which is a big hint of food isn't too "real".

Nope. You said it means it's garbage. Now you're trying to walk back absolute statements.

Carbs as a word are quite a bit used interchangeably to mean sugars. When you here to lower your carbs, they are referring to sugars vs say eating a potato.

You specifically said carbs in general. Now you're trying to walk back absolute statements.

All I said is intermittent fasting sounds pretty normal if it is what you said I've been pushing. Breakfast is a pretty recent concept and skipping it shouldn't be anything out of the ordinary for the human body. There's nothing saying eating breakfast, lunch, and dinner is some baseline standard either.

You literally said it's how we ate "historically" and that breakfast is bullshit. Now you're trying to walk back absolute statements.

I understand we know rather little with regards to many things and not to take single studies as any settled science. Introducing people to eating tons of something humans haven't really eaten before and introducing a new vegetable to people (that already eat various other vegetables) are 2 completely different things.

Exactly, which is why the issue is highly processed foods and not a particular macronutrient (fat, protein, carbohydrates because I am genuinely starting to doubt you know what a macronutrient is) because we've been eating them in some for or another for our entire existence.

Fried foods have trans fats, which are very bad for you.

Why are they bad for you? The reason health bodies say they are bad is that they raise LDL cholestorol and lower HDL.
The only reason to believe that is believing that what you consume does in fact affect blood LDL. Which you already said isn't true. Also why did it take me like 4 pages of asking for you to finally answer that? I have the decency to respond to every point you make. You keep ignoring half my posts.

Fat was found to be the cause of the increase in heart disease and food companies removed fat, but doing that removes flavor. Guess what adds flavor and doesn't add fat? Sugar. That's why food companies added all this sugar to tons of foods because if they have to cut fat, then they have to add sugar to make it taste good or at least the easiest way. And when the public is told fat is bad, they will buy the stuff with less fat that has, you know, more sugar. That's how added sugars became so prevalent.

How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat (Published 2016)

Newly discovered documents show that the sugar industry paid scientists in the 1960s to shape the debate around heart disease, sugar and fat.

www.nytimes.com

Again you have just demonstrated that the guidelines were misunderstood by the public and corporations. Not that the guidelines were wrong.

Eating bread in America is bad for you, that's the American food pyramid of what to eat for Americans and eating that much American bread is not good. You said yourself that American bread is really bread.

I'm sure you can get real bread in America. And I'm doubly certain that that's what the food pyramid meant.

If it's known that the whole egg thing was alarmist bullshit, then how'd that get around to doctors telling their patients to limit egg consumption?

I told you. GP's are twats who think they're smarter than they are. They see the "general" in their title and think it allows them to speak on a range of topica when really it means they're in no way specialised and have a very limited scope of care.

I said I heard that meat is the most nutritious food, I hardly went into proclaiming it the best food. I said sugar is basically poison, proclaimed that, and still stand by that.

And I said that that is hilarious because you claim to just follow the science but really you just believe what a clown on YouTube told you because it sounds about right to you. And I still stand by that. It is hilarious.

What did I say at that point that hasn't checked out?

All of the absolute claims that I pointed out that you're now trying to walk back and pretend you didn't say or didn't mean the way you said them.

How is cutting out something for a week or 2 highly restrictive?

An entire macronutrient, one that can lead to flu like symptoms after a couple of days if cut too low. Take it you didn't google kwto flu then.

It's only to get you off craving foods as much and thus making the long-term diet easier to stick to. I see plenty of friends trying to do some very restrictive diet and they get off it rather soon because it's just too restrictive and they just set themselves up for failure. A friend recently was going to do some extreme fast/cleansing thing and I told her that you don't have to do such extreme things and you're just setting yourself up for failure. I didn't even say to do no carbs for that initial week or two but try your hardest to eliminated them as much as possible. Like I never ate a sandwich or burger without bread as I can't really do the lettuce wrap alternative thing because I don't like lettuce but I have removed half the bread/bun and folded it over only needing the one piece of bread to make the sandwich/burger work. Whereas some can do the lettuce wrap thing but can't give some carb source that I could easily. Do the stuff that makes sense for you, come up with your own diet based on following general guidelines vs something very specific that most likely won't work for you.

Most dietitians and nutritionists would work with you to build a better relationship with and understanding of the food you eat. Not just try and eliminate things. Also, vwry funny that you're encouraging following general guidelines now.

People don't really know what Dunning-Kruger effect actually is...

Yup and this is a prime example of one. Your complete ignorance of diet and nutrition makes you feel more confident speaking on it with authority than people who have more formal training because their training has taught them the limit of their scope of practice. But you'll spout nonsense with balls out confidence. It's very funny.

Mysterious is basically a troll and I talk to people as they talk to me. When have I replied to you in an disrespected manner? You've been far more disrespectful to me than I have been to you. I legit want actual conversations unlike most people that post on the internet.

No you don't. You want belly scratches and to be told you're a smart little soldier.

You literally said I didn't have the knowledge to know a healthy person doesn't need to change their diet...

Where? Pretty sure I said you don't know what a healthy person is.

Normal fasting has been shown to provide many health benefits. Breakfast is literally called that because it breaks your fast. Why break your fast just to break it due to some conceived 3-meal structure that you've been told to follow that has no scientific backing?

Because you want to? It has exactly as nuch scientific backing as Intermittent fasting. Which I already pointed out, you ignored it amd that's why we keep running around in circles of your ignorance.

[quot]Also, most people's breakfasts are really just filled with sugars. [/QUOTE] So like I said the problem is the food, not when it's eaten.

Breakfast is the easiest meal to give up (and most people's worst meals) due to how it's usually your least social meal of the day. Not that breakfast can't work but it's by far the most problematic.

Again, this is just based on personal beliefs and not any science, which is what you claim to follow.

Skinny fat people still get diabetes the same as obese people,

Exactly. So obesity is not a symptom of insulin resistance.

obesity is not the thing that puts you on the road to diabetes, which is exactly what you said. Just look into India's skinny fat diabetes problem.

Never said it is. I said obesity and insulin resistance are both caused by overconsumption.

I don't think the food pyramid top part for fats means pure fat sources (it even says in parentheses naturally occurring). Who's eating just the fat of a steak or butter? It's not like the top of the pyramid saying sugar is bad means just pure sugar sources either.

You don't think it but you're wrong. By pure fat sources I mean things like oil, butter, lard and the like. Like I said, Meat, fish, nuts, beans and dairy products are all sources of dietary fats and they are well represented on the pyramid in roughly the ratio I suggested several times. And the top layer means added sugars. Added sugar means when you take a thing and put sugar in it. As an aside lots of people are eating just butter. They're dumb.

 

[Cheetodust]

[/QUOTE]

Better than me. Way better than you. That's how they get through peer review to begin with

Here is a timely article relating to the field of S&C Coaching and Sports Nutrition but is a nice little look at how interpreting data is a skill and how lacking that skill can affect research.

Meta-Analyses Are the Gold Standard for Evidence, but What’s the Value of Gold These Days?

Meta-analyses are a top-tier form of scientific evidence, assuming they’re conducted and reviewed skillfully. New research casts major doubts on that assumption in the exercise science and sports nutrition literature. Read on for a nuanced but practical discussion about research interpretation.

www.strongerbyscience.com

Of course some people will look at this and say they're diploma from University Of Facebook with a major in Youtube Content actually makes them better equipped to speak on these topics than the ivory tower elites.

Frankly I live by a simple idea. We are all stupid. At best most of us will know a reasonable amount about 1 or maybe 2 subjects. Even at that our knowledge will be mainly focused in a specific area of that 1 particular subject. Some of us think they're incredibly smart. They are the most stupid ones. Any one who comes at you with total assuredness that they are very very smart is, in fact, weapons grade stupid. See Musk, Elon and Zuckerberg, Mark.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Any one who comes at you with total assuredness that they are very very smart is, in fact, weapons grade stupid. See Musk, Elon and Zuckerberg, Mark.

Or running some sort of con. For some reason, people pretending to know everything makes masses of people believe them.

 

[Cheetodust]

Or running some sort of con. For some reason, people pretending to know everything makes masses of people believe them.

Yup. Just look at Liver King. His fans insisted that he was natural. Now that we have confirmation he isn't(confirmation beyond just fucking look at him) his followers are still behind him because now he's honest about his PED use.