Check sig, 4-8 a day crew. Strong and healthy af.

"hrr drr I cant refute actual sources so I just call it propaganda"b..b.bbut aspartame is gonna give you cancer!

Twinkie diet professor lost 27 pounds and improved blood markers

Mind you I'm now hearing rumblings from the scientific community that the "Bad cholesterol" is not really bad now

Jury is still out for me but I'm leaning toward the "Balanced diet with majority fresh food" is the ideal

Lol@ thinking I am mad at an opinion of an unkown person on the internet.
Just lol

this is why you search for peer reviewed articles on the topics if you want actual facts. Things like someone says, or if a title has the word "may" its crap.

there was an article in the new yorker about a scientist who found some negative effects of this certain fertilizer or some chit that a lot of major produce companies used
people would come to his lectures and stalk him and im pretty sure he also lost his job

Can confirm.

I barely ever eat sugar, always pass on cakes, juices, cereals, etc and have been for year, unless its a holiday. Sugar is the worst thing for you as mentioned in this thread.

Barley malt Dehydrated cane juice Golden sugar Molasses
Barbados sugar Demerara sugar Golden syrup Muscovado
Beet sugar Dextran Grape sugar Panocha
Brown sugar Dextrose High fructose corn syrup Powdered sugar
Buttered syrup Diastatic malt Honey Raw sugar
Cane juice Diatase Icing sugar Refiner’s syrup
Cane sugar Ethyl maltol Invert sugar Rice syrup
Caramel Free flowing brown sugars Lactose Sorbitol
Corn syrup Fructose Malt Sorghum syrup
Corn syrup solids Fruit juice Maltodextrin Sucrose
Confectioner’s sugar Fruit juice concentrate Maltose Sugar (granulated)
Carob syrup Galactose Malt syrup Treacle
Castor sugar Glucose Mannitol Turbinado sugar
Date sugar Glucose solids Maple syrup Yellow sugar

This. Eggs, beef, chicken, turkey (not lunch meat) and fresh fruits/vegetables are the way to go. I throw oatmeal, yogurt and kimchi in there too. Don't even really mess with bread at all.


Sugar is the silent killer.

your clearly were m8 or you wouldn't have responded in such an emotional and ignorant manner. It's really not a big deal

not sure if trolling or if being willingly ignorant.

The study of low-carb vs high carb was partially conducted by the NuSI who are actually low-carb advocates and champion the carb-insulin model of obesity. I'm sorry that facts don't fit your narrative, but with sugar consumption down obesity is still fuking sky high. I wonder why??? No, it couldn't possibly be overeating, no way! Obviously the graph doesn't mean sugar = good for you although sugarcucks will use it as "propoganda". It just means there are larger factors implicated in obesity. Also not really sure how you can argue ACTUALLY testing blood markers and when it doesn't fit your narrative "hurr durrr sugar propaganda!" Your blood markers WILL actually be healthier if you just eat less in spite of eating junk via just simply losing weight.

One industry or another stands to benefit from certain research one way or another. If certain research demonizes sugar, industries will simply move on to the sweetener bandwagon. Guess what industries benefits from research demonizing sugar? These ******* so called healthy living/eating industries.

Herp derp it's all about eating your fruits and vegetables! Eat them all! Eat as much as you can! It's so healthy! Veggie/fruit smoothies will detox and cleanse your body! Never mind it is high in sugar, it is the good kind of sugar!

Nevermind that a McDonalds salad has more calories than a double big mac, nevermind all that dressing and cheese which shoot up all those calories "but but but muh lettuce and kale! I'm eating healthy eating brah!" Lol if anybody thinks demonizing a particular ingredient hurts an industry significantly. They will just move on to the next fad/half-truth.



One of the biggest lies ironically rooted in movements like anti-sugar is that "eating healthy foods = weight loss". First of all nobody can even come to a consensus what healthy food actually means or is. Second of all over-consumption of so called "healthy foods" actually isn't healthy. Lol @ my dad who has high potassium and my diabetic grandfather eating 10 bananas a day. Lol @ anybody eating 10 bananas a day thinking all that sugar is healthy "but it's healthy and non-added sugar!". Lol @ anybody eating 3000 calories worth of fruits and veggies when their maintenance is 2000 calories "but I'm eating healthy yet I'm still a fat POS wut do brahs!". Dat dere green bulk of peace. "But I drink veggie smoothies every morning! I am so healthy!" Meanwhile, like 100g of sugar and 800 calories lmfao. Or the obese guy who eats healthy but tries to give advice to skinny guy or makes fun of him for eating "junk food". Just lol.

It's fuking amazing how much demonization and scare tactics fool people and how much those industries profit off of it. Pro-sugar will profit sugar industries. Anti-sugar will profit these shammy healthy living industries. Every industry has an agenda and stands to profit or lose from research. Every industry will peddle, misrepresent and over-exaggerate research and studies to fit that agenda.


However why do none of these industries ever promote eating less? It literally is the most logical conclusion to all of this yet there is so much BS out there people overlook this obvious and simple fact. Why do we not learn about this in school? They'll promote all these fad diets and foods for weight-loss, doing a whole bunch of exercise (which isn't a bad thing TBH) but never portion control. One simple reason ...


Literally no industry stands to profit from peddling "you need to eat less". That's one thing all these food/health industries have in common. They're trying to sell, push and promote their product. Lol @ coming out as a billion dollar food company that sells dairy, meats, etc funding research that promotes this very idea. Lol @ company wanting to sell you their hippie veggie/fruit smoothies promoting weight-loss saying that you need to consume less foods outright without some catch. That would be a marketing disaster, brb we want you to buy our product but don't buy too much of it because of calories in vs calories out. Said nobody ever.


Losing fat/weight doesn't need to be fuking rocket science, "oh if you eat this food it will alter your biochemistry by increasing this chemical compound which in turn inhibits this enzyme which produces another chemical compound that inhibits this fat burning enzyme". Yes it is more than calories in/calories out. But people making fun of people who say "it's all about calories in and calories out" fail to realize this is actually the most practical, applicable, simple to understand advice you can impart to somebody trying to lose weight. And in reality it is also responsible for most of your weight-loss. Lol @ telling most of the population to go keto, eliminate all processed foods and sugars. Enough people aren't disciplined enough for a simple diet as is, what makes people think they will actually follow more restrictive conditions? And just simply replacing the calories of refined sugars with other options is a lesser effective method of losing weight.

A diet that somebody can adhere to is #1 and it's effectiveness is #2. No matter how effective a diet is if they can't adhere to it it isn't going to work period. So telling people "so and so is bad" and go cold turkey on that chit is terrible fuking advice. But who was simply following the concept of moderation????

[QUOTE=sooby post_id=1549550131]people are still getting fatter even though sugar consumption is down

[img]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-fUv755XU-3g/Vkof8Eln2WI/AAAAAAAAbbU/gIqDZs4l708/s1600/Carbs%2Bvs.%2Bobesity%2B%2528sugar%2529.jpg[/img

low-carb vs low fat: in practicality and reality both diets work very well

[URL=https://examine.com/nutrition/low-fat-vs-low-carb-for-weight-loss/]https://examine.com/nutrition/low-fa...r-weight-loss/[/URL]


as I said overconsumption is the biggest problem in our society. If people learned portion control this would also inherently lower sugar consumption. I've been on keto diets and yes even though I was only consuming slightly less calories I did lose a little bit of weight and all my blood markers got slightly better. But when I just started dieting despite eating chit like ice-cream and what not all my blood markers improved significantly.

[URL=https://www.rd.com/health/diet-weight-loss/yes-you-canlose-weight-with-twinkies/]https://www.rd.com/health/diet-weigh...with-twinkies/[/URL]

also this dude literally ate mostly twinkies and lost a chit load of weight and almost all of his blood markers improved. A lot of it really comes down to calories in vs calories out as cliche as it may seem. Not saying refined sugars, processed foods and additives are healthy or anything but losing weight alone seems to make people significantly more healthier and decrease their susceptibility to a lot of diseases.[/QUOTE]
Portion size is a huge deal. People eat more now especially with fast food. People are a lot more sedentary with their free time also. Look at kids nowadays, their version of skinny was chunky when I grew up in the 90s

[img]https://i.imgur.com/XTJF4dB.jpg[/img]

Great documentary (on Prime)...

Everyone is always talking about carbs and fats but the one macronutrient that gave me the most health problems was protein. Less muscle but better health and energy. It's hard finding the minimum amount needed to at least maintain muscle and the maximum that won't make me feel toxic. I think anywhere from 80 g to 110 g might be my sweet spot.

I thought the lack of fiber is what made refined sugar bad?

I watched a documentary once (can't remember which) but basically talked about how the food pyramid was a huge scam and at the time of introduction was a fad diet like a lot of other ones we see, and the secretary of agriculture started doing it and made it the national standard or something like that. Because of course 8-10 servings of bread per day has to be good for you!

Prime member checking in. Repped

I remember the bread thing growing up. I was always like "who the fukk would eat that much bread a day"

true say. I remember in the 90s they started coming out with "ooooh double and triple-cheese burgers only 5.99" or some chit at Wendys or McDonalds. It doesn't help that some of places like McDonalds honestly are very inexpensive. Not sure what the prices were back then accounting for inflation. To be fair to McDonalds they do have some low calorie options and some of their chit has GOAT balance of macros. But fuk man I don't know what it is they add in their chit but it isn't very filling and it leaves you craving for more. Like a Filet-O-Fish has 400 calories I swear I can eat like 5 of those mofos easy.

I think the way we have changed as a society overall makes high calorie dense options like fast food lucrative options and why people are fatter than ever. We value convenience/instant-gratification more than ever and want things done quickly. Brb order McDonalds and literally have dinner in 5 minutes. BRB rising costs of vegetables and whole foods. BRB more women in the workforce so they can't stay at home and cook dinner and make lunch for family 5 days a week because of higher cost of living. BRB being millenial snowflakes not knowing how to do chit including how to cook. Brb more cubecels than ever. Brb brb.


a good thing they've done in my province is the mandatory listing of calories of most multi-chain fast-food restaurants directly on their display menu, including calories of toppings, sauces, etc. If it doesn't help the general population fuk it, it helps semi-srs lifting brahs.

Not true

Sugar doesn't make you fat, calories do. However this is a basic blanket statement. Exercise is the main variable. People need to focus on increased exercise rather than food restriction to lose weight.

Fat gain has a lot more to do with hormones than that.

Explain this: prior to puberty, boys and girls have very similar bodies. Yet, somehow, puberty kicks in and girls gain massive amounts of fat and boys don’t or even drop in bodyfat % thanks to tons of lean muscle gains.

No major changes in diet or anything, they don’t hit puberty and start eating more or less of sugar, meat or anything.

The answer is obviously hormones, but my question is why do we discount it otherwise?

What is the hormonal response of eating 100g of sugar vs 100g of oatmeal vs 100g of fat & protein , etc? Are we trying to suggest they’re all the same and it’s purely cals in vs cals out?

Wasnt aware you can see emotions thru txt. I wasnt writing shakespear on my post lol

Serious?

Kind of keen but my sugar addiction rules my life forreal

Not a shock. All nutritional information that the media pushes is based on a certain agenda. A liberal agenda 99.9% of the time.

this so much it hits the liver very hard

That and no vitamins and minerals.

Your body requires vitamins and minerals to process food.

Since refined sugar has no vitamins and minerals your body gets them from it's stores to process the food.

Or in other words: Processed sugar takes vitamins and minerals out of your body.

That's a basic overview but there's a lot more to why processed sugar is bad for you.

As far as I know cholesterol isn't bad.

The idea of it being bad is more BS pushed by food/medical industry.

Your body makes hormones from cholesterol.

The problem is if your cholesterol is too high, because then that means that for whatever reason your body isn't using it.

But of course the medical industry says "we're gonna lower that cholesterol" meanwhile that also means you're not treating the reason your cholesterol is high (most likely some endocrine disorder), and potentially leaving your body without enough to make whatever hormones it needs.

Kinda related I was watching something a while back regarding osteoporosis and how Merck manipulated the data from studies, and also made it standard for doctors to use a less accurate machine for measuring bone density, in order to push a drug that actually makes osteoporosis worse (through different pathways).

None of these things should be news to anybody, they treat your symptom with something that causes different symptoms, so they can then treat those symptoms, and so on...

It's ****ed up.

Lean meat, veggies, fruit, nuts...almost anything natural and unprocessed.

Yes...and if I eat sugar I feel like draw for about 24 hours and if I eat it for a few days the fatigue, lack of mental clarity and skin issues immediate return. My wife is on the no sugar diet and she has the same effects...