59 posts in this topic

Posted

Fresh fruits contain fiber which travels quickly through the intestines and triggers satiety, which means it's pretty hard to eat too much fruit, i.e. your body tells you right away you've had enough and you just don't want anymore.

you just proved my point. fiber prevents you from consuming more energy. fructose had nothing to do with all of a sudden making your body some fat producing machine. everything ive been saying all along.

Hormones control appetite, energy level, amount of energy converted to fat. That's just a fact.

they do but hormones are controlled by outside factors,such as how much activity you are doing and how much you eat and the type of macronutrients. hormones don't control whether you are going to exercise or eat that pizza or not. your brain makes that choice.

Your example doesn't illustrate why someone would eat too much, simply that they would eat prefabricated, unhealthy food. The human body knows when it needs food and when to stop eating. Even with little activity, a person normally doesn't get obese, she will simply eat less. How come then, people eat too much? How come they don't feel full after eating half that 2000-calorie meal and stop there? How come they feel exhausted even though they have a surplus of calories?

like I said earlier, over consumption of energy, use your example above. fruit has fibre,so you're going to be satisfied more than drinking a soda when its all said and done. ive been saying hfcs is not the problem itself, its that its cheap and added to everything so it adds unnecessary energy that doesn't add satiety. that's the problem,not that fructose breaks the laws of physics. you even unintentionally agreed with me.

I agree that life choices have a role in this, but it cannot account for such a widespread phenomenon. People have not suddenly become gluttons, and while they are more sedentary than before that shouldn't lead in itself to a massive obesity endemic. We're seeing babies practically born obese. Surely they cannot be blamed for their lifestyle?

sure it can. we've become lazier. look at everything around us. its all become automated. we have machines that do things we used to have to do manually. before, I would walk to the library,search for books to gather information.in that time,i would have done a lot of activity by walking,picking up and flipping. today I can sit on my ass,drink a litre of soda, eat a bag of chips while I get my information from Wikipedia. that's the difference. want the newspaper? you don't have to walk to the cornerstore anymore.

no more going to the store to do some shopping and doing a lot of walking and dragging bags around. ebay and amazon has us convered while we watch our Netflix and massive amounts of free content that keeps our asses planted to the couch.

want food? its cheaper and more convenient than going to the store, walking around picking ingredients,going home and making a mess. its probably not as tasty as fast food anyways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Researchers from the University of California Los Angeles found that despite claims to the contrary, Subway is just as unhealthy as the oft-reviled golden arches of McDonald

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

(quote)yes it is. its physics. its the law of conservation of energy. energy cannot be created,nor destroyed. it is only transferred. When you eat, you're shifting energy in your body. if theres too much of it and it isn't used, it gets stored as fat or muscle. It cannot be destroyed. if you don't provide enough energy to your body, where is this energy going to come from? thin air? no,it comes from reserve fat stores. that is how you lose weight.(/quote)

fully agree. a kilo fat has about 7000 kcal. if u wanna lose a kilo well then simply eat less. in the end its a game of sums what you eat in a day. in a week, in a month. stay below what you burn and you lose weight. if not, then not. kinda simple.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

You can also get a single cheeseburger and a diet coke at McDonalds.

Doesn't change the fact that Subway can be just as healthy or unhealthy as any other fast food depending on what you pick.

I think the more important thing here is that mcdonalds foods contain modified ingredients and trans fats to help preserve and maintain flavor. I dont care if a cheeseburger and a diet coke has less calories than subway. The fact is, the subway food is much fresher (natural) and has less modified ingredients in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I think the more important thing here is that mcdonalds foods contain modified ingredients and trans fats to help preserve and maintain flavor. I dont care if a cheeseburger and a diet coke has less calories than subway. The fact is, the subway food is much fresher (natural) and has less modified ingredients in it.

Feel free to back that up ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Don't order a footlong - pretty simple really. Footlong will be ~1000 calories which is close to 2/3 of your daily requirement. 6-inch will be about half that which is about perfect.

2/3? says who? caloric needs depend on the individual and their activity level. my caloric needs are over 3000 a day.

of course subway isnt healthy when you get the italian bmt loaded w/ cheese and mayo (delicious, btw). but if you stick w/ their healthier options and skip the extra fat it's not so bad.

one of my fav subs at subway is the chicken teriyaki. footlong on wheat, cheese, no added mayo or oil, is like 750 calories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

you just proved my point. fiber prevents you from consuming more energy. fructose had nothing to do with all of a sudden making your body some fat producing machine. everything ive been saying all along.

That just doesn't follow. I explained why you'd take less fructose in fruit than in sodas; that doesn't support the idea that it's just another harmless sugar. If you're going to argue without logic I don't see the point of discussing in the first place.

they do but hormones are controlled by outside factors,such as how much activity you are doing and how much you eat and the type of macronutrients. hormones don't control whether you are going to exercise or eat that pizza or not. your brain makes that choice.
And how does your brain make that choice? Why do you feel hungry or full? The way your brain gets its information is largely through hormones.

like I said earlier, over consumption of energy, use your example above. fruit has fibre,so you're going to be satisfied more than drinking a soda when its all said and done. ive been saying hfcs is not the problem itself, its that its cheap and added to everything so it adds unnecessary energy that doesn't add satiety. that's the problem,not that fructose breaks the laws of physics. you even unintentionally agreed with me.
You paint a simplified picture and also grossly misrepresent my point (breaking the laws of physics? Where did you come up with that?). Yes, when you drink a soda you are taking too much energy, but that doesn't explain why you'd take too much energy overall in a day or week. The body should normally react to an excess intake by reducing your appetite on the next meal. The excess calories are not simply in sugar but in everything we eat. There's not that much sugar at all in a McDonald or Subway meal, for instance.

Anyway, I feel like you're simply bent on proving your point and painting mine in the worst possible light at the expense of calm and sound logic, which will get nowhere. This discussion has run its length as far as I'm concerned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

That just doesn't follow. I explained why you'd take less fructose in fruit than in sodas; that doesn't support the idea that it's just another harmless sugar.

If you're going to argue without logic I don't see the point of discussing in the first place.

you've shown nothing to prove that hfcs is worse than sugar. show me a study on actual humans that shows high fructose corn syrup is worse for you than sucrose or some other sugar. there are many studies showing that they are just as equivalent metabolically, with CT scans and MRIs done on the organs and muscles that show the effects of different sugars on fat including hfcs.

And how does your brain make that choice? Why do you feel hungry or full? The way your brain gets its information is largely through hormones.

you feel full when your gut is full. its such a simple concept. geez.

You paint a simplified picture and also grossly misrepresent my point (breaking the laws of physics? Where did you come up with that?). Yes, when you drink a soda you are taking too much energy, but that doesn't explain why you'd take too much energy overall in a day or week. The body should normally react to an excess intake by reducing your appetite on the next meal. The excess calories are not simply in sugar but in everything we eat. There's not that much sugar at all in a McDonald or Subway meal, for instance.

that's not how it works. your body doesnt tell you you're full after certain amount of energy consumption. that would be the holy grail and we would never get fat. food has to be broken down for the energy to be extracted. simple sugars pass right through the gut and get absorbed. more complex foods need to be broken down in the gut before the nutrients are extracted. since this is a slowish process, when your gut is full, you feel full. sugar will not make you full, it doesnt take volume. its not that theres something bad about sugar, it just doesnt help make you feel full so its easy to keep consuming it because it tastes so good. why do people who do gastric bypass surgery feel full by just eating a tea cup sized portion of food? it has nothing to do with their hormones or else they would still be hungry.

Anyway, I feel like you're simply bent on proving your point and painting mine in the worst possible light at the expense of calm and sound logic, which will get nowhere. This discussion has run its length as far as I'm concerned.

fructose is a sugar that goes through the same metabolic process as other sugars do,backed by numerous studies widely available. its on you to bring proof to show its different, not on me. if you feel like you've got nothing to back up your "opinion" that's fine, but please don't make baseless claims based on a correlation chart that you are hell bent on believing over real science.

i will leave you with expert opinion,something I would trust over anything you will ever say

[*]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

to those that wanna care more about food:

whenever you ask yourself whats healthy or not just imagine how that particular food would exist in nature without supermarkets and producers. the closer your food is to what it exists naturally, the better.

the more it is handled by companies, added stuff to make it more durable, or "healthy", dont believe it. it will not have a positive effect for you.

buy simple food, close to nature, and cook/do your own meal. its good for your purse and good for your body.

btw - sugar is used in pretty much every supermarket food. but not to always sweeten it. sugar is being used because it "levels" up the taste of poor quality food and sugar is extremely cheap. thats why it is used in so many products. get off of as much sugar possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.