You’re just spouting half-baked influencer nonsense. Sugar is not a demon, carbohydrates are literally the primary fuel that we run on, and virtually every cell in our body uses them. It’s the improper consumption of carbohydrates outside of their natural, intact, whole-food context; as well as within the context of an overall diet that tends to be high in heavily processed foods, extremely low fiber, low antioxidant and other phytonutrient content, way too high in animal products which come packaged with too much saturated fats, especially cured meats, and in lifestyles with other significant risk factors like sedentary, smoking, and excessive alcohol consumption.
Fat has its place, but its role is mainly an emergency store for periods of starvation. Our bodies use these fuels differently too. For example if you look at textbooks on fitness training, they might talk about the myth of “the fat burning zone.” Think of our body’s energy consumption like a set of dimmer switches. The body does not switch between one or the other like a binary, it’s more that it will use differing ratios of all energy sources based partly on activity level. If you’re doing low impact activity like walking or, even just existing, the body will tend to prefer burning a ratio of calories from fat. If you move to higher impact activities, your body will start burning a much higher ratio of calories from carbohydrates. Although going back to that point about the fat burning zone myth, it must be stressed that it is a myth - you’ll burn a lot more fat with higher impact exercise despite the body using more carbs because the overall volume of calories burned is way higher than with low impact, especially if you do something like HIIT.
There is good reason that even relatively conservative fitness organizations like NASM say right in their textbooks - carbs are equally, if not a more important nutrient than protein.
And yeah, the communication about fats in the 80s and 90s was poor. But that doesn’t mean one macro is magically innocent and the other is evil. In the big picture, experts were recommending Mediterranean style diets all the way back then. Industry did not listen. Sure some products were reduced fat - mostly the unpopular ones. And yes they raised sugar levels. But overall, both refined sugar levels, and fat levels have increased in processed food levels over time - especially saturated fats, and when it was legal, trans fats.
But yeah, palm and coconut oils are awful. They’re being put in too many things, and it won’t surprize me if we’re going to start seeing a dip in vegan health outcomes because of that.
The palm oil is especially bad because of the way it is produced - mainly by burning down rain forest and planting there, but the soil isn’t great for that and gets washed out fast, which means the next area of rain forest gets destroyed.
Lol. Sugar industry perversions? My anointed sibling, you replied to a comment in which I recommended a list of ingredients to make a healthy Nutella alternative - not a single one of which was sugar.
And okay, carbs aren’t sugar. Except they also are sugar, because all carbs are made of sugar. That’s the point, that the substance itself is not evil or unhealthy. It’s the inappropriate consumption and other relevant lifestyle factors that are.
For example, overconsumption of fats - namely saturated fats - increases insulin resistance in the body. This effect amplifies the harmful effects of sugar. Sugar does not cause diabetes apart from obesity.
Sugar causes diabetes. Carbs are very different in your body then sugar, and it looks like your post was edited, idk about fat causing diabetes as you typed, never heard that.
Wrong. The single biggest factor in type 2 diabetes is body fat. Sugar can contribute to weight gain, but so can a lot of things. Overconsumption in general will lead to weight gain, and weight gain increases the risk of diabetes. Sugar can be one factor in those risks, but is almost never the sole reason. You know what does appear to play a pretty big role in diabetes risk? Meat.
Carbs are very different in your body then sugar,
Which ones? There are three types of carbs: sugar, starch, and fiber. Basic sugars and starches mostly act the same in the body. Both are quickly broken down by enzymes in our intestines, and processed into our bloodstream rather quickly (although starches take a little bit longer to digest than simple sugars).
Fiber is where things really are different. We cannot digest fiber, but out gut microbiome can, which makes it a crucially important category of nutrients for our gut health.
But I think what you’re not getting is that natural sources of fiber are very often also natural sources of high amounts of sugar and starches. Many fruits are very important sources of fiber, vitamins and minerals, and unique phytonutrients - but they are also a package deal with lots of sugar. So if sugar is so bad, does that mean fruit is bad too? No, well, not usually at least. And that’s because the fiber binds up those sugars and a lot of other nutrients, and causes all of them to digest a lot more slowly. On top of that, the antioxidants in the fruits cancel out what would have been pro-inflammatory effects of the sugars if those sugars were consumed in a form where the fiber and antioxidants were stripped away leaving only processed sugars.
This is what I was trying to get it. Whether sugar is harmful or not depends on a lot of factors. When it’s refined away from its whole-food source it’s bad. When it’s refined and consumed in a diet really high in saturated fats, it becomes even worse. But sugars that are naturally present in plants, when those plants are eaten in their whole form, are healthy and a great source of energy.
and it looks like your post was edited,
Are you accusing me of something?
idk about fat causing diabetes as you typed, never heard that.
Not just fat, excessive body fat. Overweight is the single biggest risk factor for type 2 diabetes. This is why every fad diet out there can claim to “cure” diabetes. Play around with a diet long enough and you might lose weight. If you lose weight, your diabetes might go into remission. Viola, you can now claim your diet cures diabetes.
That is a lot of words. Answering the first sentence however, sugar becomes fat, so it’s a nonsensical argument from the get go. Fructose is converted into fat in the liver (yes with other steps,), glucose used as is, 50/50 ratio, 60/40 fructose/glucose on high fructose corn syrup.
As to the editing of the post claim, I believe you made a second post I took for edited at the time so I was wrong, responding to your previous post while looking at the newer one. But I never confirmed that. But I apologize if so.
To accuse fruit of being the same as raw sugar, with fiber, is sugar industry propaganda all the way. You bought their arguments, read their propaganda, and believed it.
To claim sugar is not different from carbs and starch, is similarly incorrect, laughably so. We all know the body breaks it down to sugar to use it, that doesn’t mean it’s the same to ingest.
I am all over the place here, but you are conflating body fat with eating fatty foods, to excuse the outsized role sugar plays in this process. You believed what you were told, and still do. That is what is going on here. Arguing body fat causes diabetes not sugar is like saying bullets kill people not guns.
There are unhealthy fats to be sure, and other sources of obesity, sugar is the biggest by far though…
You’re just spouting half-baked influencer nonsense. Sugar is not a demon, carbohydrates are literally the primary fuel that we run on, and virtually every cell in our body uses them. It’s the improper consumption of carbohydrates outside of their natural, intact, whole-food context; as well as within the context of an overall diet that tends to be high in heavily processed foods, extremely low fiber, low antioxidant and other phytonutrient content, way too high in animal products which come packaged with too much saturated fats, especially cured meats, and in lifestyles with other significant risk factors like sedentary, smoking, and excessive alcohol consumption.
Fat has its place, but its role is mainly an emergency store for periods of starvation. Our bodies use these fuels differently too. For example if you look at textbooks on fitness training, they might talk about the myth of “the fat burning zone.” Think of our body’s energy consumption like a set of dimmer switches. The body does not switch between one or the other like a binary, it’s more that it will use differing ratios of all energy sources based partly on activity level. If you’re doing low impact activity like walking or, even just existing, the body will tend to prefer burning a ratio of calories from fat. If you move to higher impact activities, your body will start burning a much higher ratio of calories from carbohydrates. Although going back to that point about the fat burning zone myth, it must be stressed that it is a myth - you’ll burn a lot more fat with higher impact exercise despite the body using more carbs because the overall volume of calories burned is way higher than with low impact, especially if you do something like HIIT.
There is good reason that even relatively conservative fitness organizations like NASM say right in their textbooks - carbs are equally, if not a more important nutrient than protein.
And yeah, the communication about fats in the 80s and 90s was poor. But that doesn’t mean one macro is magically innocent and the other is evil. In the big picture, experts were recommending Mediterranean style diets all the way back then. Industry did not listen. Sure some products were reduced fat - mostly the unpopular ones. And yes they raised sugar levels. But overall, both refined sugar levels, and fat levels have increased in processed food levels over time - especially saturated fats, and when it was legal, trans fats.
But yeah, palm and coconut oils are awful. They’re being put in too many things, and it won’t surprize me if we’re going to start seeing a dip in vegan health outcomes because of that.
The palm oil is especially bad because of the way it is produced - mainly by burning down rain forest and planting there, but the soil isn’t great for that and gets washed out fast, which means the next area of rain forest gets destroyed.
Right, it’s no good environmentally, or healthwise.
Carbohydrates and sugar are not the same thing, no matter how many times you regurgitate sugar industry pervertions.
Lol. Sugar industry perversions? My anointed sibling, you replied to a comment in which I recommended a list of ingredients to make a healthy Nutella alternative - not a single one of which was sugar.
And okay, carbs aren’t sugar. Except they also are sugar, because all carbs are made of sugar. That’s the point, that the substance itself is not evil or unhealthy. It’s the inappropriate consumption and other relevant lifestyle factors that are.
For example, overconsumption of fats - namely saturated fats - increases insulin resistance in the body. This effect amplifies the harmful effects of sugar. Sugar does not cause diabetes apart from obesity.
Anointed sivling eh? None of that is accurate, brother.
All of it is accurate.
Sugar causes diabetes. Carbs are very different in your body then sugar, and it looks like your post was edited, idk about fat causing diabetes as you typed, never heard that.
Wrong. The single biggest factor in type 2 diabetes is body fat. Sugar can contribute to weight gain, but so can a lot of things. Overconsumption in general will lead to weight gain, and weight gain increases the risk of diabetes. Sugar can be one factor in those risks, but is almost never the sole reason. You know what does appear to play a pretty big role in diabetes risk? Meat.
Which ones? There are three types of carbs: sugar, starch, and fiber. Basic sugars and starches mostly act the same in the body. Both are quickly broken down by enzymes in our intestines, and processed into our bloodstream rather quickly (although starches take a little bit longer to digest than simple sugars).
Fiber is where things really are different. We cannot digest fiber, but out gut microbiome can, which makes it a crucially important category of nutrients for our gut health.
But I think what you’re not getting is that natural sources of fiber are very often also natural sources of high amounts of sugar and starches. Many fruits are very important sources of fiber, vitamins and minerals, and unique phytonutrients - but they are also a package deal with lots of sugar. So if sugar is so bad, does that mean fruit is bad too? No, well, not usually at least. And that’s because the fiber binds up those sugars and a lot of other nutrients, and causes all of them to digest a lot more slowly. On top of that, the antioxidants in the fruits cancel out what would have been pro-inflammatory effects of the sugars if those sugars were consumed in a form where the fiber and antioxidants were stripped away leaving only processed sugars.
This is what I was trying to get it. Whether sugar is harmful or not depends on a lot of factors. When it’s refined away from its whole-food source it’s bad. When it’s refined and consumed in a diet really high in saturated fats, it becomes even worse. But sugars that are naturally present in plants, when those plants are eaten in their whole form, are healthy and a great source of energy.
Are you accusing me of something?
Not just fat, excessive body fat. Overweight is the single biggest risk factor for type 2 diabetes. This is why every fad diet out there can claim to “cure” diabetes. Play around with a diet long enough and you might lose weight. If you lose weight, your diabetes might go into remission. Viola, you can now claim your diet cures diabetes.
That is a lot of words. Answering the first sentence however, sugar becomes fat, so it’s a nonsensical argument from the get go. Fructose is converted into fat in the liver (yes with other steps,), glucose used as is, 50/50 ratio, 60/40 fructose/glucose on high fructose corn syrup.
As to the editing of the post claim, I believe you made a second post I took for edited at the time so I was wrong, responding to your previous post while looking at the newer one. But I never confirmed that. But I apologize if so.
To accuse fruit of being the same as raw sugar, with fiber, is sugar industry propaganda all the way. You bought their arguments, read their propaganda, and believed it.
To claim sugar is not different from carbs and starch, is similarly incorrect, laughably so. We all know the body breaks it down to sugar to use it, that doesn’t mean it’s the same to ingest.
I am all over the place here, but you are conflating body fat with eating fatty foods, to excuse the outsized role sugar plays in this process. You believed what you were told, and still do. That is what is going on here. Arguing body fat causes diabetes not sugar is like saying bullets kill people not guns.
There are unhealthy fats to be sure, and other sources of obesity, sugar is the biggest by far though…