Page 1
Page 1
Started By
Message

TIL that women with a "sweet tooth" are or will be Fat

Posted on 1/2/14 at 2:12 am
Posted by Iona Fan Man
Member since Jan 2006
27462 posts
Posted on 1/2/14 at 2:12 am
quote:

a pair of psychologists at Florida State University studied rats that were fed either a standard diet or a sweetened version of the same food. The rats eating the sweetened food ate more calories than those eating the standard diet did, with the female rats eating the most. They consumed 35 percent more calories than the male rats, which ate only 10 to 15 percent more than usual. The researchers allowed some of the rats to exercise, and those rats did cut back on their calorie consumption, but the female rats cut back far less than the male rats did. This led the researchers to theorize that although both sexes have an innate preference for high-calorie, high-sugar foods, females’ preference is more pronounced.

Rats aside, human females report having cravings for sweets more often than men do. If those cravings have a biological basis, there are a few reasons why women would benefit from calorie-rich food. They need to maintain a certain percentage of body fat (about 17 percent) in order to sustain a pregnancy, so an innate preference for sweets would be an efficient way to pack on the pounds that keep the menstrual cycle in action. It’s also possible that women’s elevated estrogen levels during the cycle are what cause the cravings.


LINK

all these stevia, truvia, artficial or natural "low cal" sweetener chicks don't even realize that it's making them eat more in general. Curb your intake of sweets and you will eat less in general.

#Brosafety
This post was edited on 1/2/14 at 2:20 am
Posted by Volvagia
Fort Worth
Member since Mar 2006
51907 posts
Posted on 1/2/14 at 2:24 am to
I don't see where it states zero calorie sweetener leads to eating more in general.

Did the study use a zero calorie sweetener or did they use sugar?
This post was edited on 1/2/14 at 2:28 am
Posted by Iona Fan Man
Member since Jan 2006
27462 posts
Posted on 1/2/14 at 2:30 am to
quote:

I don't see where it states zero calorie sweetener leads to eating more in general.


neither do I but it shows the affliction of the sugar lust condition....they will happily announce to the world that they have a "sweet tooth" and are using "truvia" or "stevia"...it shows propensity to consume and graze/snack/et al.

one lady drinking diet coke and another drinking water....which is skinnier?

asians have few sweets, and even those aren't even that sweet...."things that make you go Humm"
This post was edited on 1/2/14 at 2:33 am
Posted by Kafka
I am the moral conscience of TD
Member since Jul 2007
141958 posts
Posted on 1/2/14 at 2:35 am to
:kashonly:

Posted by Volvagia
Fort Worth
Member since Mar 2006
51907 posts
Posted on 1/2/14 at 2:36 am to
WTF


So you don't see it, but you are going to say this:

"all these stevia, truvia, artficial or natural "low cal" sweetener chicks don't even realize that it's making them eat more in general. Curb your intake of sweets and you will eat less in general. "


quote:

neither do I but it shows the affliction of the sugar lust condition....they will happily announce to the world that they have a "sweet tooth" and are using "truvia" or "stevia"...it shows propensity to consume and graze/snack/et al.


You obviously missed the point of the research findings in your woman hatred if that is the main thing you get out of it.


quote:

one lady drinking diet coke and another drinking water....which is skinnier?


To be honest, I never saw a correlation.


Seen fatties drink only ice cold water ("To burn more calories"), and sub 100# girls all about the diet drinks.

The fact that you say this only further implies you didn't understand the implications of the findings.
Posted by Iona Fan Man
Member since Jan 2006
27462 posts
Posted on 1/2/14 at 2:36 am to
quote:

I don't see where it states zero calorie sweetener leads to eating more in general.




here is that one

quote:

Are you using artificial sweeteners and opting for low-cal "diet" foods in an effort to control of your weight?

If so, you may be surprised to learn that research has repeatedly shown that artificial no- or low-calorie sweeteners are anything but good news for weight loss... Contrary to popular belief, studies have found that artificial sweeteners such as aspartame can:

Stimulate your appetite
Increase carbohydrate cravings
Stimulate fat storage and weight gain
Now, yet another study1 has been published showing that saccharin and aspartame cause greater weight gain than sugar.


LINK
Posted by Volvagia
Fort Worth
Member since Mar 2006
51907 posts
Posted on 1/2/14 at 2:40 am to
quote:

asians have few sweets, and even those aren't even that sweet...."things that make you go Humm"


And yet, in spite of that, the same culture developed this:






Candy in the West has been popular for centuries.


Obiesity has been a problem for the past 50 years. Starting even before the low calorie craze.

Obviously they aren't the cause.
This post was edited on 1/2/14 at 2:41 am
Posted by Iona Fan Man
Member since Jan 2006
27462 posts
Posted on 1/2/14 at 2:43 am to
quote:

You obviously missed the point of the research findings in your woman hatred if that is the main thing you get out of it.


no man, shite's obvious but I need to get some jackass no one knows to say "word for word" the exact same and still no one will believe me and will come up with some excuse.

Chicks use to hide chocolate and shite and pretend that they had no idea why they were fat.....now they announce it and are proud because they can say "truvia" or some shite.....it's still the sweet craving disorder that makes them gain weight
Posted by Iona Fan Man
Member since Jan 2006
27462 posts
Posted on 1/2/14 at 2:45 am to
quote:

Candy in the West has been popular for centuries.



bullshite....wasn't until transportation, refrigeration, and sugar processing....all things within the last 100 years
Posted by Volvagia
Fort Worth
Member since Mar 2006
51907 posts
Posted on 1/2/14 at 2:46 am to
Now there is something.


Was just saying the original article wasn't saying what you commented.


That said, it still isn't clear which way it goes.


Here is a study looking that long term effects that shows the opposite:

LINK
Posted by Volvagia
Fort Worth
Member since Mar 2006
51907 posts
Posted on 1/2/14 at 2:50 am to
TIL that apple pies and cookies were invented in the past 100 years.

The only thing that has changed was sugar production.

What candy you eat that is refrigerated?

Regardless, that doesn't mean that sugar is the only source of that.

Do some digging and see how many medieval era recipes (even for peasant level) used honey.....


And even if you want to assume it had only been a 100 years of prevalence: Obiesity only become a nationwide problem in the past 30.

Point still stands
This post was edited on 1/2/14 at 2:52 am
Posted by Iona Fan Man
Member since Jan 2006
27462 posts
Posted on 1/2/14 at 2:55 am to
quote:

Here is a study looking that long term effects that shows the opposite:

LINK



where's the control group?
ie red bull,coffee,tea...
but no water?

I will concede, sucrose is worse than that of whatever was used in the "artificial sweetener" group...where's the unsweetened?
Posted by Iona Fan Man
Member since Jan 2006
27462 posts
Posted on 1/2/14 at 2:58 am to
quote:

Do some digging and see how many medieval era recipes (even for peasant level) used honey.....


yeah...was honey ample? Limey...died from no citrus(Vit-C)...food wasn't like it was today. you had vegatable water with some chunks of meat, if you were lucky and a torn piece of bread.

your sugara/honey, was royalty.
This post was edited on 1/2/14 at 3:00 am
Posted by Iona Fan Man
Member since Jan 2006
27462 posts
Posted on 1/2/14 at 3:03 am to
quote:

TIL that apple pies and cookies were invented in the past 100 years.


ever eat "old world" sweets?

try some Persian desserts, at age 5 I was crying..."I don't want any dessert"...feast on some asian bean paste and get back to me
This post was edited on 1/2/14 at 3:05 am
Posted by Volvagia
Fort Worth
Member since Mar 2006
51907 posts
Posted on 1/2/14 at 3:10 am to
quote:

where's the control group?


The one given sugar of course

The point isn't comparing nothing to articifical sweeteners.

The point was that it was counter to your study above, which has no "water control" as well.

It's still unclear as to which way it goes, which means that however it falls it is probably a minor impact.
Posted by Iona Fan Man
Member since Jan 2006
27462 posts
Posted on 1/2/14 at 3:24 am to


1.6 kg is like 3 pounds...over 10 weeks..so nothing

and it was

quote:

For 10 wk, overweight men and women consumed


fatties all along anyway...sweet tooth already established


your study had no normal weight people nor normal sugar consumption.....just fatties with artificials... and because one group on avg gained .3 lbs/week while the other lost .22 lbs/week...disproves what exactly?.



This post was edited on 1/2/14 at 3:30 am
Posted by Winkface
Member since Jul 2010
34377 posts
Posted on 1/2/14 at 6:10 am to
You're complaining about his study when yours was only done on rats? That's rich.

I don't know which one yet but I'm convinced you have some mental disorder.
Posted by Kcrad
Diamondhead
Member since Nov 2010
54896 posts
Posted on 1/2/14 at 6:29 am to
Money.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram