Some people can eat whatever they want and don't get fat ...

[Fatpanda]

You quote me incorrectly. I said spiking one's own insulin is worthless.

you have studies that back this claim ?

you have studies that refute my claims about insulins effects ?

you have still not went into detail explaining your diet, and why it works better.

yes, as i said you have been owned.

jim, or is that vince   i suggest you contact the mods and ask them to delete this thread, as it has done your credibility no good at all.

[Fatpanda]

http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=134929.msg3483926#msg3483926

http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=134929.msg3483933#msg3483933

http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=134929.msg3483942#msg3483942

and following

hahahahahahahahahahaha oh brother 

[Disgusted]

you have studies that back this claim ?

you have studies that refute my claims about insulins effects ?

you have still not went into detail explaining your diet, and why it works better.

yes, as i said you have been owned.

jim, or is that vince   i suggest you contact the mods and ask them to delete this thread, as it has done your credibility no good at all.

Studies?  LOL A bunch of fat guys who took Celltech. LOL Taking exogenous insulin is way different than trying to spike your own

[Disgusted]

http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=134929.msg3483926#msg3483926

http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=134929.msg3483933#msg3483933

http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=134929.msg3483942#msg3483942

and following

I still have no idea what you are specifically talking about. I'm not going to read thru a ton of posts I made so if you want me to answer a specific question just quote me and I'll gladly answer.

[YoungBlood]

have you prepared many champions ? 

And you have?

[wavelength]

I still have no idea what you are specifically talking about. I'm not going to read thru a ton of posts I made so if you want me to answer a specific question just quote me and I'll gladly answer.

The posts are very short but here you go (exact content of the 3 posts linked above):

If that was true, one would lose weight when adding refined sugar to the diet.

Yes, but not enough to worry about. Kinda like the fad of eating negative calorie foods. At least with them you are getting some nutrition. Actually if you took two groups of people and fed one group nothing and gave the other group all the table sugar they wanted the sugar group would starve first.

So again, if I would add refined sugar to my maintenance diet, I would start to lose weight

(You just quoted yorself again) Yes, but not enough to worry about. Kinda like the fad of eating negative calorie foods. At least with them you are getting some nutrition. Actually if you took two groups of people and fed one group nothing and gave the other group all the table sugar you wanted the sugar group would starve first.

I asked for evidence in the above thread and you couldn't provide any. In this thread however, you said:

Can adding refined sugar to a maintenance diet make you lose weight?

no

So the question is: what made you change your opinion?

[Disgusted]

The posts are very short but here you go (exact content of the 3 posts linked above):

I asked for evidence in the above thread and you couldn't provide any. In this thread however, you said:

So the question is: what made you change your opinion?

Now see that wan't so hard was it?   I knew that this is exactly what you were referring to when you asked me this yesterday and the answer still is no as it would be silly to try and add sugar to ones diet just as it would be silly to add celery as one would not lose an appreciable amount of "weight" from doing so. If you would have quoted me, it would have been apparent that I was talking about two groups of people one eating nothing but table sugar while the other actually fasting.  I think that you are getting confused as to why one would starve faster while eating just table sugar as opposed to the other group who ate nothing. The table sugar requires energy from the body that robs one of nutrients while replacing nothing in return. So the table sugar group would starve first mainly because of nutrient loss  much in the same way one would lose electrolytes because of drinking too much water, but obviously at a much slower rate. They are not dying from fat loss as I think you may have thought. Of course there was not reason to go into that much depth of an explanation in the previous post as we were not actually talking specifically about what you had asked.

[tbombz]

You quote me incorrectly. I said spiking one's own insulin is worthless.

Studies?  LOL A bunch of fat guys who took Celltech. LOL Taking exogenous insulin is way different than trying to spike your own

the beneficial effects of insulin occur at concentrations easily acheivable by a large carb meal. using exogenous insulin really provides very little benefit.

[Fatpanda]

And you have?

61 and counting.

[Fatpanda]

the beneficial effects of insulin occur at concentrations easily acheivable by a large carb meal. using exogenous insulin really provides very little benefit.

actually candy you are correct, in fact the maximal beneficial effects of insulin are achieved with as little 15micrograms i believe, which can be provided by eating a whole protein source alone, there is actually no need for carbs from that view.

however the carbs do add other benefits though i.e. better hydration, energy replacement, strength levels etc

i'm sure jim knows that though 

[wavelength]

Now see that wan't so hard was it?   I knew that this is exactly what you were referring to when you asked me this yesterday and the answer still is no as it would be silly to try and add sugar to ones diet just as it would be silly to add celery as one would not lose an appreciable amount of "weight" from doing so. If you would have quoted me, it would have been apparent that I was talking about two groups of people one eating nothing but table sugar while the other actually fasting.  I think that you are getting confused as to why one would starve faster while eating just table sugar as opposed to the other group who ate nothing. The table sugar requires energy from the body that robs one of nutrients while replacing nothing in return. So the table sugar group would starve first mainly because of nutrient loss  much in the same way one would lose electrolytes because of drinking too much water, but obviously at a much slower rate. They are not dying from fat loss as I think you may have thought. Of course there was not reason to go into that much depth of an explanation in the previous post as we were not actually talking specifically about what you had asked.

I specifically asked you what would happen if one would add refined sugar to a maintenance diet, there was no mentioning of "sugar only" in my question. Although you added some information afterwards, you still said yes to the question.

This is how our conversation went on:

I fully agree that it's foolish, I will of course not try that as my next diet concept. I also understand that your main point was that refined sugar does not provide certain nutrients and may even "rob" the body of some nutrients. But to say it does not provide ANY nutrition (including the main purpose of it = energy), yet even robs the body of physical energy is a concept unknown to me. That's why I'm curious.

Just google sugar and nutritional value and you will find tons of info confirming just that.

I already did and I could not find an article that would claim adding refined sugar to a diet could lead to an energy deficit (aka weight loss). Can you provide me with any reference or link?

Bump, I really couldn't find a valid source on that one.

Wave, this is something that I have known for years just like the average person eating 150 pounds of sugar per year, which surprises me that Adam did not know this. I sometimes take for granted that the average person may know these things too. Anyway, I read this years ago. You amy or may not find it but you should if you research enough.

Well I will make the claim that I think it is impossible to create an energy deficit (aka weight loss) by adding refined sugar to a maintenance diet. Every article I could find on refined sugar states that it always leads to weight gain. I have also never heard anyone else make a different statement. That's why I'm so interested in getting prove of that statement of you. No bash at all, I'm just curious.

I still have never heard any nutritionist making the claim that refined sugar would substract energy from the body nor could I find any reference to it.

[Fatpanda]

I specifically asked you what would happen if one would add refined sugar to a maintenance diet, there was no mentioning of "sugar only" in my question. Although you added some information afterwards, you still said yes to the question.

This is how our conversation went on:

I still have never heard any nutritionist making the claim that refined sugar would substract energy from the body nor could I find any reference to it.

jim ?

where art thou ?

[Disgusted]

   
Re: ICE CREAM FOR EVERYONE !!!
« Reply #669 on: November 20, 2008, 06:29:37 PM »
Quote from: Disgusted on November 20, 2008, 06:27:33 PM
Carbohydrates are not an essential nutrient, true or false.

True but I don't understand why you say refined sugar provides NOTHING. I think we can agree that refined sugar doesn't add much other than pure energy and may even "rob" the body of other nutrients, but to say it provides NOTHING seems strange.


 So in your way of thinking going by the quote above just because sugar provides energy it seems strange to you that I say it provides nothing? If sugar provides nothing but energy and I think that we agree on this then the energy that it is supplying must come from the body processing the sugar into energy and this process requires the body to manufacture that energy therefore robbing the body of nutrients. Just because something provides energy doesn't not mean the it provides nutritional value. This is something that you seem to  disagree with me on. So going by the way that you are thinking then cocaine must be of nutritional value since if provides energy.

[YoungBlood]

61 and counting.

Name ten of them. And since they're champions, people here should be able to recognize their names.

[Disgusted]

Wavelength
Getbig V

Posts: 9236



~~~



   
Re: ICE CREAM FOR EVERYONE !!!
« Reply #672 on: November 20, 2008, 06:33:28 PM »
Quote from: The True Adonis on November 20, 2008, 06:28:49 PM
 

If that was true, one would lose weight when adding refined sugar to the diet.

The above was not a question you made to me just a comment to TA's response to one of my posts.



Quote from: Disgusted on November 20, 2008, 06:37:34 PM
Yes, but not enough to worry about. Kinda like the fad of eating negative calorie foods. At least with them you are getting some nutrition. Actually if you took two groups of people and fed one group nothing and gave the other group all the table sugar you wanted the sugar group would starve first.

This was my response to you "comment" it was NOT a question for me but I commented on it anyway. You claimed I did not answer your question when in reality it NEVER was a question so when you state that you never asked about the sugar only diet question it's true because you never asked me a question get it??  



So again, if I would add refined sugar to my maintenance diet, I would start to lose weight?

So again what?  This was the first time you ever asked me this specific question (plus you conveniently added the word maintenance) until the other day and as you already know I never answered it on that date (11-8-2008) until you asked me again the other day.

Again you are misquoting and taking what I say out of context in what seems to be a desperate attempt to prove me wrong.

[Disgusted]

jim ?

where art thou ?

Hey, you just need to shut your pie hole and go back to "cleaning up"  your vocabulary starting with the phrase inter fat.  You gotta be one of the dumbest guys on here.

[tbombz]

disgusted is a good guy and a good "trainer/guru" too. but like most of the "guru"s out there, he has alot of ideas that he cant back up with any kind of accurate scientific information. its a mistake for people who have learned through experience to try and back up their experience-derived knowledge with terminology and phrases that are research-based in nature.


on the issue of sugar robbing the body of nutrients, no.

[Disgusted]

disgusted is a good guy and a good "trainer/guru" too. but like most of the "guru"s out there, he has alot of ideas that he cant back up with any kind of accurate scientific information. its a mistake for people who have learned through experience to try and back up their experience-derived knowledge with terminology and phrases that are research-based in nature.


on the issue of sugar robbing the body of nutrients, no.

Most of what I know is from training hundreds of people of all types over the course of 25 years and I tend to not give too much cred to scientific studies, not to say that they are worthless. There are so many Dr's of nutrition out there that can't agree with each other and they never will because each have had success with their own nutritional concepts. There is a conference each year with about 10 different experts and basically it's a round table of discussion and they are on youtube to watch. It's funny to see these guys argue which theory is best. One guy touts his low fat diet another mod fat low carb another raw food and so forth. No one ever proves there case as to which way of thinking is best, but they all have a good time debating and they prob learn something as well.

Now, I'm all ears as to why sugar does not rob the body of nutrients.

[tbombz]

Most of what I know is from training hundreds of people of all types over the course of 25 years and I tend to not give too much cred to scientific studies, not to say that they are worthless. There are so many Dr's of nutrition out there that can't agree with each other and they never will because each have had success with their own nutritional concepts. There is a conference each year with about 10 different experts and basically it's a round table of discussion and they are on youtube to watch. It's funny to see these guys argue which theory is best. One guy touts his low fat diet another mod fat low carb another raw food and so forth. No one ever proves there case as to which way of thinking is best, but they all have a good time debating and they prob learn something as well.

Now, I'm all ears as to why sugar does not rob the body of nutrients.

i know you know what works. youve been doing this forever. the proof is in the pudding..

im just saying that when you start to give explanations to people for why things work, you shouldnt try to give the answer you think "sounds accurate", but rather just say "it just works   " (or: "i dont know why it works,  it just does"   )

[Disgusted]

i know you know what works. youve been doing this forever. the proof is in the pudding..

im just saying that when you start to give explanations to people for why things work, you shouldnt try to give the answer you think "sounds accurate", but rather just say "it just works   " (or: "i dont know why it works,  it just does"   )

I'm sincerely wanting to know why you think sugar does not rob the body of nutrients. I do agree that there are many things that I do with peoples diets that work and I do not know exactly why and or have no scientific proof. I m not scientist so I sometimes have a hard time trying to put things into words that will give the best explanation, but when I know something works and I am correct about it I will do my best to try and explain why.  

[tbombz]

I'm sincerely wanting to know why you think sugar does not rob the body of nutrients. I do agree that there are many things that I do with peoples diets that work and I do not know exactly why and or have no scientific proof. I m not scientist so I sometimes have a hard time trying to put things into words that will give the best explanation, but when I know something works and I am correct about it I will do my best to try and explain why.  

does the digestion of sugar require any energy? a small amount, probably about 2-5% of the amount of energy the sugar is supplying the body. no matter what, sugar gives the body energy, not takes it away.

does the digestion, storeage, and utilization of sugar (glucose, fructose) require certain vitamins and minerals? yes. as does every macronutrient.

does sugar contain all of the vitamins and minerals necessary for its processing in the body? no.  does any food besides maybe vegetables contain enough vtimains and minerals to cover all  that the body will need for its processing??  no.

the process of absorbing and storing and utilizing water also takes energy and vitamins/minerals.. yet water doesnt contain either in significant amounts. does water rob the body of nutrients??

[Disgusted]

does the digestion of sugar require any energy? a small amount, probably about 2-5% of the amount of energy the sugar is supplying the body. no matter what, sugar gives the body energy, not takes it away.

does the digestion, storeage, and utilization of sugar (glucose, fructose) require certain vitamins and minerals? yes. as does every macronutrient.

does sugar contain all of the vitamins and minerals necessary for its processing in the body? no.  does any food besides maybe vegetables contain enough vtimains and minerals to cover all  that the body will need for its processing??  no.

the process of absorbing and storing and utilizing water also takes energy and vitamins/minerals.. yet water doesnt contain either in significant amounts. does water rob the body of nutrients??

Not really good examples as to why sugar does not rob the body of nutrients. Table sugar contains zero nutrients. Pure water has plenty of trace minerals and veggies have a lot of nutrition and of course no one food covers all nutritional needs. Bottom line is sugar takes away and gives nothing of value in return.

Secondly, I am not sure where you are coming up with the 2-5% digestion versus energy supplied by sugar, but assuming that you are correct for sake of argument, table sugar is not a good source of energy regardless. It spikes one's insulin too high and then as I'm assuming you already know then comes the sugar crash. Sustained energy is better provided to the body by proper nutrition as opposed to using table sugar.

[dj181]

Ok, I have a question regarding sugar intake and fat loss. Let's say if a certain fella eats 2000 cals a day, and that for him, 2000 cals puts him in a state of calorie defict, which will in turn cause him to lose weight. And lets say he gets a sufficent amount of pro and fat, and the rest of his cals come from carbs. So would it be true that he won't lose as much fat if he takes the majority of his carb calories from sugar? I'm not talking about a healthy diet, only a diet strictly for fat-loss and possibly vanity

[Disgusted]

Ok, I have a question regarding sugar intake and fat loss. Let's say if a certain fella eats 2000 cals a day, and that for him, 2000 cals puts him in a state of calorie defict, which will in turn cause him to lose weight. And lets say he gets a sufficent amount of pro and fat, and the rest of his cals come from carbs. So would it be true that he won't lose as much fat if he takes the majority of his carb calories from sugar? I'm not talking about a healthy diet, only a diet strictly for fat-loss and possibly vanity

You are still going to lose weight and how fast depends on how far below cal deficit. Doesn't really matter what type of carbs as I am assuming there is a fairly high amount of carbs in this diet.   

[dj181]

Thanks for the answer man. And now I'm really curious as to what the others will say.