Toxic Sugar?

[Gnomer]

Thats what I dont get. At 31 (presumably drug free) with a number of years of training you have a lofty goal of 40lbs of, lets just say "mass", and yet with your rapidly dwindling window of oppurtunity you are trying to do it by "experimenting".

ill just put it this way with my current experiment which has only been going for a few weeks i feel stronger, looking better, and showing more progress than I did after several months of straight CBL... i feel experimentation is key unless you want to spend your life following some plan that may never work for you just because it works for others.. that is exactly what i did for years when I was younger . I followed all the magazines, all the blogs, the "pro" routines. And it got me pretty much nowhere over the course of several years. If i would of sat down and tried to figure out what works best for me i probably would not of quit lifting all those years ago

This is good to hear. Just try not to become so dogmatic that you refuse to entertain other ideas when things do stop working. You seem fairly indoctrinated into the carbs are evil mindset with all your current postings. I went through that phase and well beyond the point of diminishing returns. Id hate for anyone to have to waste the same amount of time, health and performance unnecessarily.

think you are reading a bit into my "carbs are evil" i do believe processed carbs are evil as well as over consumption of processed sugar along with over-consumption of PUFAs.. but i eat plenty of carbs I don't count at all but I eat lots of veggies, decent amount of nuts, and some fruit daily on off days and who knows how much in terms of fiber. Will be adding in some other carb sources on WO days as well soon.

[Gl;itch.e]

Thats what I dont get. At 31 (presumably drug free) with a number of years of training you have a lofty goal of 40lbs of, lets just say "mass", and yet with your rapidly dwindling window of oppurtunity you are trying to do it by "experimenting".

ill just put it this way with my current experiment which has only been going for a few weeks i feel stronger, looking better, and showing more progress than I did after several months of straight CBL... i feel experimentation is key unless you want to spend your life following some plan that may never work for you just because it works for others.. that is exactly what i did for years when I was younger . I followed all the magazines, all the blogs, the "pro" routines. And it got me pretty much nowhere over the course of several years. If i would of sat down and tried to figure out what works best for me i probably would not of quit lifting all those years ago

This is good to hear. Just try not to become so dogmatic that you refuse to entertain other ideas when things do stop working. You seem fairly indoctrinated into the carbs are evil mindset with all your current postings. I went through that phase and well beyond the point of diminishing returns. Id hate for anyone to have to waste the same amount of time, health and performance unnecessarily.

think you are reading a bit into my "carbs are evil" i do believe processed carbs are evil

😮

[Gnomer]

Thats what I dont get. At 31 (presumably drug free) with a number of years of training you have a lofty goal of 40lbs of, lets just say "mass", and yet with your rapidly dwindling window of oppurtunity you are trying to do it by "experimenting".

ill just put it this way with my current experiment which has only been going for a few weeks i feel stronger, looking better, and showing more progress than I did after several months of straight CBL... i feel experimentation is key unless you want to spend your life following some plan that may never work for you just because it works for others.. that is exactly what i did for years when I was younger . I followed all the magazines, all the blogs, the "pro" routines. And it got me pretty much nowhere over the course of several years. If i would of sat down and tried to figure out what works best for me i probably would not of quit lifting all those years ago

This is good to hear. Just try not to become so dogmatic that you refuse to entertain other ideas when things do stop working. You seem fairly indoctrinated into the carbs are evil mindset with all your current postings. I went through that phase and well beyond the point of diminishing returns. Id hate for anyone to have to waste the same amount of time, health and performance unnecessarily.

think you are reading a bit into my "carbs are evil" i do believe processed carbs are evil

😮

maybe you feel differently but I don't feel a slice of white bread is the nutritional equivalent to same amount in grams(carb wise) of spinach or broccoli or any other fibrous vegetable..  how our bodies processes these foods are obviously very different. And i know you believe PUFAs are not healthy not sure why you don't see highly processed carbs aren't as well as they are both linked to countless conditions we see today...not to mention i have seen first hand the harm of processed carbs by cutting them out and basically curing myself of several conditions I lived with all my life

[Gl;itch.e]

Thats what I dont get. At 31 (presumably drug free) with a number of years of training you have a lofty goal of 40lbs of, lets just say "mass", and yet with your rapidly dwindling window of oppurtunity you are trying to do it by "experimenting".

ill just put it this way with my current experiment which has only been going for a few weeks i feel stronger, looking better, and showing more progress than I did after several months of straight CBL... i feel experimentation is key unless you want to spend your life following some plan that may never work for you just because it works for others.. that is exactly what i did for years when I was younger . I followed all the magazines, all the blogs, the "pro" routines. And it got me pretty much nowhere over the course of several years. If i would of sat down and tried to figure out what works best for me i probably would not of quit lifting all those years ago

This is good to hear. Just try not to become so dogmatic that you refuse to entertain other ideas when things do stop working. You seem fairly indoctrinated into the carbs are evil mindset with all your current postings. I went through that phase and well beyond the point of diminishing returns. Id hate for anyone to have to waste the same amount of time, health and performance unnecessarily.

think you are reading a bit into my "carbs are evil" i do believe processed carbs are evil

😮

maybe you feel differently but I don't feel a slice of white bread is the nutritional equivalent to same amount in grams(carb wise) of spinach or broccoli or any other fibrous vegetable..  how our bodies processes these foods are obviously very different. And i know you believe PUFAs are not healthy not sure why you don't see highly processed carbs aren't as well as they are both linked to countless conditions we see today...not to mention i have seen first hand the harm of processed carbs by cutting them out and basically curing myself of several conditions I lived with all my life

Thats the thing. I understand where you are coming from. I just think its a faulty perspective thats driving this. In this instance you arent really talking about the macro anymore and thats what Im getting at. You are looking at nutrient density and thats worth considering IF you are not eating enough or a balance of different foods. IMO Carbs are an Energy macro not a Nutrient one. Relative to primarily Fat and Protein foods, Carbs (processed or not) have very little nutrient density. Which is why I believe after nutritional baselines/goals are meet its not going to make much difference whether you get some carbs from whatever source you choose. Yes I could throw the argument in here that a processed carb like bread is probably more likely to yield whatever nutrients are in it compared to fibrous vegetables which are very poorly digested, but again this would be focusing on minutia instead of the big picture.

[Gnomer]

Thats the thing. I understand where you are coming from. I just think its a faulty perspective thats driving this. In this instance you arent really talking about the macro anymore and thats what Im getting at. You are looking at nutrient density and thats worth considering IF you are not eating enough or a balance of different foods. IMO Carbs are an Energy macro not a Nutrient one. Relative to primarily Fat and Protein foods, Carbs (processed or not) have very little nutrient density. Which is why I believe after nutritional baselines/goals are meet its not going to make much difference whether you get some carbs from whatever source you choose. Yes I could throw the argument in here that a processed carb like bread is probably more likely to yield whatever nutrients are in it compared to fibrous vegetables which are very poorly digested, but again this would be focusing on minutia instead of the big picture.

that's sort of the point though people feel stuff like wheat and sugar should be staples of their diet because that is what the government tells them is healthy. There is no concept of nutrient density when they are making these food pyramids or plates or whatever it's mostly just hitting a balance of what they consider ideal "macros"  which really doesn't do anything but hurt people in the end(because they eat junk even if think they are getting all that "healthy" food in them). It's pretty evident that the over consumption of foods that constantly raise our blood sugar is a widespread epidemic going on right now and as type II diabetes has now well over 300 million people living with it worldwide coming from an estimated 30-50 million only 20 years agoalso like I said above obviously it does matter to many where they get those extra macros from because if it didn't i would still be living with several conditions that dropping wheat solved for me.. and if it didn't I should be able to just eat some "healthy" margarine or corn oil all the time and be just fine as long as my "required" nutritional needs are met

[Gl;itch.e]

Thats the thing. I understand where you are coming from. I just think its a faulty perspective thats driving this. In this instance you arent really talking about the macro anymore and thats what Im getting at. You are looking at nutrient density and thats worth considering IF you are not eating enough or a balance of different foods. IMO Carbs are an Energy macro not a Nutrient one. Relative to primarily Fat and Protein foods, Carbs (processed or not) have very little nutrient density. Which is why I believe after nutritional baselines/goals are meet its not going to make much difference whether you get some carbs from whatever source you choose. Yes I could throw the argument in here that a processed carb like bread is probably more likely to yield whatever nutrients are in it compared to fibrous vegetables which are very poorly digested, but again this would be focusing on minutia instead of the big picture.

that's sort of the point though people feel stuff like wheat and sugar should be staples of their diet because that is what the government tells them is healthy.

Rice, Grains, Corn etc yes, if you look at the food pyramid sugar is on the top in the small amounts category.

There is no concept of nutrient density when they are making these food pyramids or plates or whatever it's mostly just hitting a balance of what they consider ideal "macros"  which really doesn't do anything but hurt people in the end.

It's pretty evident that the over consumption of foods that constantly raise our blood sugar is a widespread epidemic going on right now and as type II diabetes has now well over 300 million people living with it worldwide coming from an estimated 30-50 million only 20 years ago

I disagree, people (with books and subscriptions to sell) paint it that way, but the stats on sugar consumption havent changed all that much over the years despite radical changes in the health of the developed nations. Over consumption of calories has increased, PUFAs consumption has increased, lifestyle and other social factors have changed, stress has increased. So its pretty hard IMO to draw any direct links to one factor when there are so many other things at play.

[CBachelor17]

I have to pitch in here and say that i don't believe all Carbs are not equal. Just as fat is not equal. Easy example is placing A TBSP of Kerrygold next to a TBSP of Partially Hydrogenated BS Margarine. Both 14g of fat, but yet significantly different impacts on the body. I refined, processed crap loaf of bread made of more "-oxide" "-alynes" "anates" than i even care to know what half are, the ones I do know are horrible for the body.Now take a loaf of GF bread (with the same macronutrients on the Nutrition Label) made of say 5 ingredients, (Rice Flour, Potato Starch, palm oil, rice starch, rice syrup, soy protein, yeast, ,) to name a few commonly found. Are easily recognizable as a better source of the same amount of macronutrients. With the same Glycemic Response we are looking for on a CBL or CN type arrangement.

[Gnomer]

Thats the thing. I understand where you are coming from. I just think its a faulty perspective thats driving this. In this instance you arent really talking about the macro anymore and thats what Im getting at. You are looking at nutrient density and thats worth considering IF you are not eating enough or a balance of different foods. IMO Carbs are an Energy macro not a Nutrient one. Relative to primarily Fat and Protein foods, Carbs (processed or not) have very little nutrient density. Which is why I believe after nutritional baselines/goals are meet its not going to make much difference whether you get some carbs from whatever source you choose. Yes I could throw the argument in here that a processed carb like bread is probably more likely to yield whatever nutrients are in it compared to fibrous vegetables which are very poorly digested, but again this would be focusing on minutia instead of the big picture.

that's sort of the point though people feel stuff like wheat and sugar should be staples of their diet because that is what the government tells them is healthy.

Rice, Grains, Corn etc yes, if you look at the food pyramid sugar is on the top in the small amounts category.

There is no concept of nutrient density when they are making these food pyramids or plates or whatever it's mostly just hitting a balance of what they consider ideal "macros"  which really doesn't do anything but hurt people in the end.

It's pretty evident that the over consumption of foods that constantly raise our blood sugar is a widespread epidemic going on right now and as type II diabetes has now well over 300 million people living with it worldwide coming from an estimated 30-50 million only 20 years ago

I disagree, people (with books and subscriptions to sell) paint it that way, but the stats on sugar consumption havent changed all that much over the years despite radical changes in the health of the developed nations. Over consumption of calories has increased, PUFAs consumption has increased, lifestyle and other social factors have changed, stress has increased. So its pretty hard IMO to draw any direct links to one factor when there are so many other things at play.

the sales, production, and of course consumption of processed sugar(such as hfcs) have skyrocketed over the past 50 years not sure where you are getting your information... i also never seen a study showing PUFAs as a underlying cause of the diabetes epidemic.. i do agree PUFA consumption and of course overall consumption has increased by a hefty amount as well and of course there are multiple things at play here causing numerous different conditions but many of these conditions have been studied and documented for over the past 100 years before PUFAs and highly processed sugars like HFCS were everywhere and what is causing these conditions is not simply an over consumption of calories it has been shown it's specific foods that constantly raise your blood sugar all day long causing most of these issues which in today's diet are a staple of everyday life for most people

[Gl;itch.e]

the sales, production, and of course consumption of processed sugar(such as hfcs) have skyrocketed over the past 50 years not sure where you are getting your information...

google.

i also never seen a study showing PUFAs as a underlying cause of the diabetes epidemic..

Nor will you any time soon. Industry is making too much money selling both the cause (oils, processed foods) and the cure (pharmaceuticals)

i do agree PUFA consumption and of course overall consumption has increased by a hefty amount as well and of course there are multiple things at play here causing numerous different conditions but many of these conditions have been studied and documented for over the past 100 years before PUFAs and highly processed sugars like HFCS were everywhere and what is causing these conditions is not simply an over consumption of calories it has been shown it's specific foods that constantly raise your blood sugar all day long causing most of these issues which in today's diet are a staple of everyday life for most people

So if its food that we've been eating for centuries why is it only manifesting itself now in the last 50 or so? Breads not new. Corn and Rice isnt new. They've never been as much of a problem in the last millenium than they appear to be now. Maybe its not the food but the over consumption of that food. Maybe its not even that. Maybe its pollution, stress, additives and other chemicals. Maybe its radiation. Atomic testing started around the time that these modern ills started being noticed.

[Gnomer]

the sales, production, and of course consumption of processed sugar(such as hfcs) have skyrocketed over the past 50 years not sure where you are getting your information...

google.

i also never seen a study showing PUFAs as a underlying cause of the diabetes epidemic..

Nor will you any time soon. Industry is making too much money selling both the cause (oils, processed foods) and the cure (pharmaceuticals)

i do agree PUFA consumption and of course overall consumption has increased by a hefty amount as well and of course there are multiple things at play here causing numerous different conditions but many of these conditions have been studied and documented for over the past 100 years before PUFAs and highly processed sugars like HFCS were everywhere and what is causing these conditions is not simply an over consumption of calories it has been shown it's specific foods that constantly raise your blood sugar all day long causing most of these issues which in today's diet are a staple of everyday life for most people

So if its food that we've been eating for centuries why is it only manifesting itself now in the last 50 or so? Breads not new. Corn and Rice isnt new. They've never been as much of a problem in the last millenium than they appear to be now. Maybe its not the food but the over consumption of that food. Maybe its not even that. Maybe its pollution, stress, additives and other chemicals. Maybe its radiation. Atomic testing started around the time that these modern ills started being noticed.

it is the over consumption of certain foods in many people but not all.. That's pretty much the whole point, certain foods have strong effects on different people. In one person it may be a little in others it requires a lot( this was shown extensively during the great depression and studies on obese children who were pretty much starving). This is why certain conditions were far less common many many years ago as the supply wasn't as massive as it is today.. but you can see in any thriving population through history since agriculture there was a large number of obese people among many other conditions. The role of out current environment of course plays a role and if you look into the subject of epigenetics it goes through  this. Our hormones of course are the most influential things on what goes on inside our body. And leptin and insulin are easily the two of the biggest players. Hell cbl/cns is mostly based around the functions of these two hormones and how food manipulates them. It's not that hard to connect the dots and see over the past 50 years what has the greatest effect on these two hormones which could explain a good majority of what is going on with the worlds weight problem...Now this is just what the books, studies, and research i have gone through explain in great detail.. but i stand by my signature quote I always keep an open mind and always looking for new views on research and how things workForgot what book this is from and I don't remember the exact phrase but the author puts it something like "Agriculture is the single most important aspect to the boon of modern civilization but is also the single greatest detriment to the health of our species"

[Gl;itch.e]

it is the over consumption of certain foods in many people but not all..

This is a cop-out. There are individual responses of different people to foods. With time Im more convinced this is due to the health of the people more so than the Doctors catch all excuse "genetics" or even epigenetics. How else could an explanation be given to an example like myself where Ive gone from "carb intolerant" to "thriving on carbs"? My genetics didnt change did they? (;

That's pretty much the whole point, certain foods have strong effects on different people. In one person it may be a little in others it requires a lot( this was shown extensively during the great depression and studies on obese children who were pretty much starving).

Stop using obvious calorie dependant studies as your model of proof. Please!

This is why certain conditions were far less common many many years ago as the supply wasn't as massive as it is today.. but you can see in any thriving population through history since agriculture there was a large number of obese people among many other conditions. The role of out current environment of course plays a role and if you look into the subject of epigenetics it goes through  this. Our hormones of course are the most influential things on what goes on inside our body. And leptin and insulin are easily the two of the biggest players. Hell cbl/cns is mostly based around the functions of these two hormones and how food manipulates them. It's not that hard to connect the dots and see over the past 50 years what has the greatest effect on these two hormones which could explain a good majority of what is going on with the worlds weight problem...

How do you explain the people on CNS and various other Low Carb diets that dont respond and become pictures of health? If its just leptin and insulin surely itd work for everyone.

Now this is just what the books, studies, and research i have gone through explain in great detail.. but i stand by my signature quote I always keep an open mind and always looking for new views on research and how things workForgot what book this is from and I don't remember the exact phrase but the author puts it something like "Agriculture is the single most important aspect to the boon of modern civilization but is also the single greatest detriment to the health of our species"

Civilization is detriment

[Gnomer]

How do you explain the people on CNS and various other Low Carb diets that dont respond and become pictures of health? If its just leptin and insulin surely itd work for everyone.

from everything I wrote this should be an obvious answer not everyone responds the same to the exact same foods..our hormones do not function(thier purpose is the same of course) the exact same in our bodies from one person to the next  as it's dependent on LOTS of factors(genetics of course is the major factor) but overall food is the most powerful influence on them that we physically can easily manipulate.. if we all processed food the exact same and were all so alike there would be no such thing as food allergies or intolerances, everyone could easily just follow a simple calorie counter and always slim down to their ideal weight easy as pie.. but obviously it doesn't work like this and the evidence is overwhelming on this subjecthere is a passage from the book Epigenetics Revolution i feel is good for this discussion"We talk about DNA as if it’s a template, like a mould for a car part in a factory. In the factory, molten metal or plastic gets poured into the mould thousands of times and, unless something goes wrong in the process, out pop thousands of identical car parts.But DNA isn’t really like that. It’s more like a script. Think of Romeo and Juliet, for example. In 1936 George Cukor directed Leslie Howard and Norma Shearer in a film version. Sixty years later Baz Luhrmann directed Leonardo DiCaprio and Claire Danes in another movie version of this play. Both productions used Shakespeare’s script, yet the two movies are entirely different. Identical starting points, different outcomes.That’s what happens when cells read the genetic code that’s in DNA. The same script can result in different productions. The implications of this for human health are very wide-ranging, as we will see from the case studies we are going to look at in a moment. In all these case studies it’s really important to remember that nothing happened to the DNA blueprint of the people in these case studies. Their DNA didn’t change (mutate), and yet their life histories altered irrevocably in response to their environments."

[Gl;itch.e]

I think its fair to say we've gone slightly off topic. Theres nothing I can think of that would make me believe that a efficient fuel source such as sucrose taken in proper context could be viewed as bad. Every ill I am seeing you attribute to it is either a. over consumption of total calories. b. displacement of nutrients/disregard for proper nutrition or c. speculation based on the course of human evolution i.e "we never ate sugar therefore is has to be bad"

[Gnomer]

I think its fair to say we've gone slightly off topic. Theres nothing I can think of that would make me believe that a efficient fuel source such as sucrose taken in proper context could be viewed as bad. Every ill I am seeing you attribute to it is either a. over consumption of total calories. b. displacement of nutrients/disregard for proper nutrition or c. speculation based on the course of human evolution i.e "we never ate sugar therefore is has to be bad"

if you read Pure White and Deadly, Sugar Blues, Sugar Nation, Sugar Shock!, Fat Chance you may think a bit different on the subject but maybe not you seem pretty dead set on it..

[Gl;itch.e]

I think its fair to say we've gone slightly off topic. Theres nothing I can think of that would make me believe that a efficient fuel source such as sucrose taken in proper context could be viewed as bad. Every ill I am seeing you attribute to it is either a. over consumption of total calories. b. displacement of nutrients/disregard for proper nutrition or c. speculation based on the course of human evolution i.e "we never ate sugar therefore is has to be bad"

if you read Pure White and Deadly, Sugar Blues, Sugar Nation, Sugar Shock!, Fat Chance you may think a bit different on the subject but maybe not you seem pretty dead set on it..

Correct. And for the same reason I wont read any of the multitude of books that espouse how bad fat is for you. Or how a vegetarian diet is the only thing that makes sense. Please just condense it succintly if you believe it to be anything but the 3 points I just outlined.

[Author]

Posts