Emilia777 wrote: » FitnessTim wrote: » asflatasapancake wrote: » Am I the only one who thinks that sugar is being used as an excuse for why someone is overweight? It isn't that they overeat. It's the sugar's fault. Now they can be unhealthy and a financial burden to the health system and be accepted. Thank you Katie Couric. As an American, was I responsible for my diet growing up? Was it a conscious reasoned choice for me to eat sugary cereals, candy, cola, etc. You can blame my parents but they came from a generation that didn't have to worry as much about what they ate - food was just generally better for you. On the other hand, the companies that produced and marketed the food knew what they were doing and are still doing. They purposefully make food incredibly hard to resist. Good for them but who should have been responsible for informing the public the negative consequences of eating the food that was pushed on them by expert marketers. Tell the overwhelming amount of obese children that it is their fault they are overweight. Or tell the parents who constantly struggle to get their kids to eat healthy foods that it is their fault they can't compete with billboards, commercials, Youtube videos and so on that promote junk food. Ultimately it is my responsibility what I put in my body. I choose to become better informed about what proportions of foods I should eat. However, nobody should be forced to put in the same time and effort I have over the years to achieve reasonably good health. I’d just like to point out that it is these companies’ job to make their products appealing. What’s more, most are publicly owned companies, so they in fact have a responsibility to shareholders to sell as much product for as much profit as possible. That’s not malevolent, it’s capitalism.
FitnessTim wrote: » asflatasapancake wrote: » Am I the only one who thinks that sugar is being used as an excuse for why someone is overweight? It isn't that they overeat. It's the sugar's fault. Now they can be unhealthy and a financial burden to the health system and be accepted. Thank you Katie Couric. As an American, was I responsible for my diet growing up? Was it a conscious reasoned choice for me to eat sugary cereals, candy, cola, etc. You can blame my parents but they came from a generation that didn't have to worry as much about what they ate - food was just generally better for you. On the other hand, the companies that produced and marketed the food knew what they were doing and are still doing. They purposefully make food incredibly hard to resist. Good for them but who should have been responsible for informing the public the negative consequences of eating the food that was pushed on them by expert marketers. Tell the overwhelming amount of obese children that it is their fault they are overweight. Or tell the parents who constantly struggle to get their kids to eat healthy foods that it is their fault they can't compete with billboards, commercials, Youtube videos and so on that promote junk food. Ultimately it is my responsibility what I put in my body. I choose to become better informed about what proportions of foods I should eat. However, nobody should be forced to put in the same time and effort I have over the years to achieve reasonably good health.
asflatasapancake wrote: » Am I the only one who thinks that sugar is being used as an excuse for why someone is overweight? It isn't that they overeat. It's the sugar's fault. Now they can be unhealthy and a financial burden to the health system and be accepted. Thank you Katie Couric.
Emilia777 wrote: » but wouldn’t that rice only store as fat if you were eating at a caloric surplus?
Emilia777 wrote: » tedboosalis7 wrote: » lemurcat12 wrote: » tedboosalis7 wrote: » Fiber - the fiber in fruit mitigates the effects of fructose in metabolics. There is not enough fiber in yogurt to do that. Doesn't it depend on how you eat the yogurt? Lots of people eat it WITH fruit or on oatmeal, for example. I don't add sugar to yogurt (my personal preference is to eat it plain with berries or some other fruit), but if I did and otherwise ate it as I almost always do--with a breakfast including lots of veggies and some fruit--why would the bit of added sugar be an issue? Yes - context does matter - well I believe it does. I know you have posts that state the same - in a vacuum, sure there's an issue there - but if you eat it with something fibrous or add protein, it would help. Like white rice - eat white rice unto itself - you'll spike your blood sugar and make that rice store as fat - but that's in a vacuum. Eat white rice with protein and a fibrous veggie (non-starchy), now you balanced off the GI load. Great point! Sorry to butt in, but wouldn’t that rice only store as fat if you were eating at a caloric surplus? You have inspired me to look into studies done on this when I have some free time I do very much appreciate the calm and thoughtful discussion you guys have going!@try2again, this is the thread lemurcat mentions. I too found it very informative.
tedboosalis7 wrote: » lemurcat12 wrote: » tedboosalis7 wrote: » Fiber - the fiber in fruit mitigates the effects of fructose in metabolics. There is not enough fiber in yogurt to do that. Doesn't it depend on how you eat the yogurt? Lots of people eat it WITH fruit or on oatmeal, for example. I don't add sugar to yogurt (my personal preference is to eat it plain with berries or some other fruit), but if I did and otherwise ate it as I almost always do--with a breakfast including lots of veggies and some fruit--why would the bit of added sugar be an issue? Yes - context does matter - well I believe it does. I know you have posts that state the same - in a vacuum, sure there's an issue there - but if you eat it with something fibrous or add protein, it would help. Like white rice - eat white rice unto itself - you'll spike your blood sugar and make that rice store as fat - but that's in a vacuum. Eat white rice with protein and a fibrous veggie (non-starchy), now you balanced off the GI load. Great point!
lemurcat12 wrote: » tedboosalis7 wrote: » Fiber - the fiber in fruit mitigates the effects of fructose in metabolics. There is not enough fiber in yogurt to do that. Doesn't it depend on how you eat the yogurt? Lots of people eat it WITH fruit or on oatmeal, for example. I don't add sugar to yogurt (my personal preference is to eat it plain with berries or some other fruit), but if I did and otherwise ate it as I almost always do--with a breakfast including lots of veggies and some fruit--why would the bit of added sugar be an issue?
tedboosalis7 wrote: » Fiber - the fiber in fruit mitigates the effects of fructose in metabolics. There is not enough fiber in yogurt to do that.
tedboosalis7 wrote: » Emilia777 wrote: » tedboosalis7 wrote: » lemurcat12 wrote: » tedboosalis7 wrote: » Fiber - the fiber in fruit mitigates the effects of fructose in metabolics. There is not enough fiber in yogurt to do that. Doesn't it depend on how you eat the yogurt? Lots of people eat it WITH fruit or on oatmeal, for example. I don't add sugar to yogurt (my personal preference is to eat it plain with berries or some other fruit), but if I did and otherwise ate it as I almost always do--with a breakfast including lots of veggies and some fruit--why would the bit of added sugar be an issue? Yes - context does matter - well I believe it does. I know you have posts that state the same - in a vacuum, sure there's an issue there - but if you eat it with something fibrous or add protein, it would help. Like white rice - eat white rice unto itself - you'll spike your blood sugar and make that rice store as fat - but that's in a vacuum. Eat white rice with protein and a fibrous veggie (non-starchy), now you balanced off the GI load. Great point! Sorry to butt in, but wouldn’t that rice only store as fat if you were eating at a caloric surplus? You have inspired me to look into studies done on this when I have some free time I do very much appreciate the calm and thoughtful discussion you guys have going!@try2again, this is the thread lemurcat mentions. I too found it very informative. No. Several things must be satisfied in order to determine whether storage of carbohydrates into fat. It doesn't have to be in relation to calorie surplus. There's how the body metabolizes the food - what context by which you eat it, and whether you utilize the high dose of energy provided within a specific timeframe of eating it. White rice has no fiber - it digests and raises blood sugar substantially in a vacuum. Most people don't eat white rice in a vacuum (it's paired with significant protein and a non-starchy veggie) but that's why sugar is so powerful, as an example, a lot of times it's eaten unto itself without anything else to help mitigate the effects.
ndj1979 wrote: » tedboosalis7 wrote: » Emilia777 wrote: » tedboosalis7 wrote: » lemurcat12 wrote: » tedboosalis7 wrote: » Fiber - the fiber in fruit mitigates the effects of fructose in metabolics. There is not enough fiber in yogurt to do that. Doesn't it depend on how you eat the yogurt? Lots of people eat it WITH fruit or on oatmeal, for example. I don't add sugar to yogurt (my personal preference is to eat it plain with berries or some other fruit), but if I did and otherwise ate it as I almost always do--with a breakfast including lots of veggies and some fruit--why would the bit of added sugar be an issue? Yes - context does matter - well I believe it does. I know you have posts that state the same - in a vacuum, sure there's an issue there - but if you eat it with something fibrous or add protein, it would help. Like white rice - eat white rice unto itself - you'll spike your blood sugar and make that rice store as fat - but that's in a vacuum. Eat white rice with protein and a fibrous veggie (non-starchy), now you balanced off the GI load. Great point! Sorry to butt in, but wouldn’t that rice only store as fat if you were eating at a caloric surplus? You have inspired me to look into studies done on this when I have some free time I do very much appreciate the calm and thoughtful discussion you guys have going!@try2again, this is the thread lemurcat mentions. I too found it very informative. No. Several things must be satisfied in order to determine whether storage of carbohydrates into fat. It doesn't have to be in relation to calorie surplus. There's how the body metabolizes the food - what context by which you eat it, and whether you utilize the high dose of energy provided within a specific timeframe of eating it. White rice has no fiber - it digests and raises blood sugar substantially in a vacuum. Most people don't eat white rice in a vacuum (it's paired with significant protein and a non-starchy veggie) but that's why sugar is so powerful, as an example, a lot of times it's eaten unto itself without anything else to help mitigate the effects. if you have already hit your micros for the day, or a good portion thereof, I don't see how this even applies. No one is eating a diet of 100% sugar, or white rice
3bambi3 wrote: » Emilia777 wrote: » FitnessTim wrote: » asflatasapancake wrote: » Am I the only one who thinks that sugar is being used as an excuse for why someone is overweight? It isn't that they overeat. It's the sugar's fault. Now they can be unhealthy and a financial burden to the health system and be accepted. Thank you Katie Couric. As an American, was I responsible for my diet growing up? Was it a conscious reasoned choice for me to eat sugary cereals, candy, cola, etc. You can blame my parents but they came from a generation that didn't have to worry as much about what they ate - food was just generally better for you. On the other hand, the companies that produced and marketed the food knew what they were doing and are still doing. They purposefully make food incredibly hard to resist. Good for them but who should have been responsible for informing the public the negative consequences of eating the food that was pushed on them by expert marketers. Tell the overwhelming amount of obese children that it is their fault they are overweight. Or tell the parents who constantly struggle to get their kids to eat healthy foods that it is their fault they can't compete with billboards, commercials, Youtube videos and so on that promote junk food. Ultimately it is my responsibility what I put in my body. I choose to become better informed about what proportions of foods I should eat. However, nobody should be forced to put in the same time and effort I have over the years to achieve reasonably good health. I’d just like to point out that it is these companies’ job to make their products appealing. What’s more, most are publicly owned companies, so they in fact have a responsibility to shareholders to sell as much product for as much profit as possible. That’s not malevolent, it’s capitalism. Word. And, ultimately, it's up to the parents or us as grown adults to learn about nutrition. Parent's shouldn't have to compete with billboards. They're parents, and until their children have money of their own, they are in charge of nutrition. Parents who let their children tantrum their way into too much food are only reinforcing terrible habits and get zero sympathy from me. And I am going to disagree with your final point. I think if more people put in more time and effort into understanding health and nutrition, the world would be a much fitter place. You weren't 'forced' to do it; you chose to do it to improve your life and health. Frankly, I think basic nutrition should be mandatory in schools.
FitnessTim wrote: » As an American, was I responsible for my diet growing up? Was it a conscious reasoned choice for me to eat sugary cereals, candy, cola, etc. You can blame my parents but they came from a generation that didn't have to worry as much about what they ate - food was just generally better for you.
tedboosalis7 wrote: » stevencloser wrote: » granturismo wrote: » Acg67 wrote: » And you do understand all carbs are sugars? Right? All sugars are carbohydrates, not all carbohydrates are sugars. No, all carbohydrates are sugars. They're synonyms. Not true. The difference between total carbs, fiber + sugar = starch. Fiber is NOT sugar. Fiber is included in total carbohydrates.
stevencloser wrote: » granturismo wrote: » Acg67 wrote: » And you do understand all carbs are sugars? Right? All sugars are carbohydrates, not all carbohydrates are sugars. No, all carbohydrates are sugars. They're synonyms.
granturismo wrote: » Acg67 wrote: » And you do understand all carbs are sugars? Right? All sugars are carbohydrates, not all carbohydrates are sugars.
Acg67 wrote: » And you do understand all carbs are sugars? Right?
Carbohydrates are the main energy-storage molecules in most organisms. They are also important structural components for many organisms. The building blocks of carbohydrates are small molecules called sugars, composed of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen. Carbohydrates are classified according to the number of sugar molecules they contain. Monosaccharides, such as glucose, fructose, ribose, and galactose, contain only one sugar molecule. Disaccharides, such as sucrose, maltose and lactose, contain two sugar molecules linked together. Polysaccharides, such as starch, glycogen, cellulose and chitin, contain many sugar molecules linked together.
tedboosalis7 wrote: » 3bambi3 wrote: » tedboosalis7 wrote: » lemurcat12 wrote: » tedboosalis7 wrote: » Fiber - the fiber in fruit mitigates the effects of fructose in metabolics. There is not enough fiber in yogurt to do that. Doesn't it depend on how you eat the yogurt? Lots of people eat it WITH fruit or on oatmeal, for example. I don't add sugar to yogurt (my personal preference is to eat it plain with berries or some other fruit), but if I did and otherwise ate it as I almost always do--with a breakfast including lots of veggies and some fruit--why would the bit of added sugar be an issue? Yes - context does matter - well I believe it does. I know you have posts that state the same - in a vacuum, sure there's an issue there - but if you eat it with something fibrous or add protein, it would help. Like white rice - eat white rice unto itself - you'll spike your blood sugar and make that rice store as fat - but that's in a vacuum. Eat white rice with protein and a fibrous veggie (non-starchy), now you balanced off the GI load. Great point! In a calorie deficit? And don't get started with your visceral fat argument. Because it's specious at best. There's nothing specious about visceral fat. I had it - and I reduced it down to minimal amounts. I think that's trivializing the argument. Calorie deficits are relative - if you eat a high protein diet, you raise your metabolism to account for the extra protein - it's a relative number. What's the number, you really don't know - it's a best guess - and it's a best estimation based upon the nutritional profile of the food you are eating. If glycogen is not needed by the muscles, you store it as fat. That doesn't equate to being in a calorie deficit. You can be in a deficit, satisfied muscle glycogen requirements and still store it as fat.
3bambi3 wrote: » tedboosalis7 wrote: » lemurcat12 wrote: » tedboosalis7 wrote: » Fiber - the fiber in fruit mitigates the effects of fructose in metabolics. There is not enough fiber in yogurt to do that. Doesn't it depend on how you eat the yogurt? Lots of people eat it WITH fruit or on oatmeal, for example. I don't add sugar to yogurt (my personal preference is to eat it plain with berries or some other fruit), but if I did and otherwise ate it as I almost always do--with a breakfast including lots of veggies and some fruit--why would the bit of added sugar be an issue? Yes - context does matter - well I believe it does. I know you have posts that state the same - in a vacuum, sure there's an issue there - but if you eat it with something fibrous or add protein, it would help. Like white rice - eat white rice unto itself - you'll spike your blood sugar and make that rice store as fat - but that's in a vacuum. Eat white rice with protein and a fibrous veggie (non-starchy), now you balanced off the GI load. Great point! In a calorie deficit? And don't get started with your visceral fat argument. Because it's specious at best.
FitnessTim wrote: » 3bambi3 wrote: » Emilia777 wrote: » FitnessTim wrote: » asflatasapancake wrote: » Am I the only one who thinks that sugar is being used as an excuse for why someone is overweight? It isn't that they overeat. It's the sugar's fault. Now they can be unhealthy and a financial burden to the health system and be accepted. Thank you Katie Couric. As an American, was I responsible for my diet growing up? Was it a conscious reasoned choice for me to eat sugary cereals, candy, cola, etc. You can blame my parents but they came from a generation that didn't have to worry as much about what they ate - food was just generally better for you. On the other hand, the companies that produced and marketed the food knew what they were doing and are still doing. They purposefully make food incredibly hard to resist. Good for them but who should have been responsible for informing the public the negative consequences of eating the food that was pushed on them by expert marketers. Tell the overwhelming amount of obese children that it is their fault they are overweight. Or tell the parents who constantly struggle to get their kids to eat healthy foods that it is their fault they can't compete with billboards, commercials, Youtube videos and so on that promote junk food. Ultimately it is my responsibility what I put in my body. I choose to become better informed about what proportions of foods I should eat. However, nobody should be forced to put in the same time and effort I have over the years to achieve reasonably good health. I’d just like to point out that it is these companies’ job to make their products appealing. What’s more, most are publicly owned companies, so they in fact have a responsibility to shareholders to sell as much product for as much profit as possible. That’s not malevolent, it’s capitalism. Word. And, ultimately, it's up to the parents or us as grown adults to learn about nutrition. Parent's shouldn't have to compete with billboards. They're parents, and until their children have money of their own, they are in charge of nutrition. Parents who let their children tantrum their way into too much food are only reinforcing terrible habits and get zero sympathy from me. And I am going to disagree with your final point. I think if more people put in more time and effort into understanding health and nutrition, the world would be a much fitter place. You weren't 'forced' to do it; you chose to do it to improve your life and health. Frankly, I think basic nutrition should be mandatory in schools. While it is a company's job to make their products appealing that does not take them off the hook. Are the cigarette companies right to continue to push their products to kids because it is not their responsibility. They can't push it to kids in the US because it has since become illegal to do so but they do so in developing countries. Knowingly making a product for profit that contributes to the poor health of consumers IS malevolent. It isn't illegal but it is wrong. The difference between selling cigarettes and selling Coke is that the jury is still out on whether or not Coke does in fact increase the health risks. At the very least, with the prevalence of childhood obesity, products with a high percentage of calories coming from sugar should not be marketed to children. Just because the general population is not well informed, or even misinformed, that doesn't mean they should be fair game to companies who do know better.
KombuchaCat wrote: » FitnessTim wrote: » I'm surprised at how strongly people will defend sugar. I guess it is my fault for using the phrasing "sugar is bad". That's totally subjective and not true. Based on historical data, excess sugar does appear to be a contributing factor to health issues. Does that work for everyone? That may be an acceptable way to put it but it is unlikely to get the average person motivated to restrict their sugar intake. In my personal experience, not evidence but worth discussing, sugar is hard to control. About a year ago, I was in peak condition, eating right and exercising regularly. One day I decided to try Nutella. I had never had it before and I was curious about how it tasted. I spread some on a rice cake and took a taste. To me, it was the best thing I had ever tasted. Short time later my healthy lifestyle was derailed. I can't say that one taste of processed sugar was what sent me on a tailspin but it definitely made keeping my diet in check more difficult. From WebMd: INEXPLICABLE WEIGHT GAIN You stay away from burgers and drink diet soda. But sugar—both real and artificial—is the secret saboteur. When the pancreas senses sugar, the body releases insulin, which causes cells in the liver, muscle, and fat tissue to take up glucose from the blood, storing it as glycogen for energy. Eat too much at once, though, and insulin levels spike, then drop. The aftermath? You feel tired, then crave more sustenance to perk up. Your Brain on Sugar I'm not suggesting that sugar has the same effect on everyone. I'm not saying that people on a high sugar diet can't keep their weight under control. What I am saying is that based on all the evidence and studies, it is worth it for people to question whether or not sugar has a negative impact on their health and fitness goals. You have obviously never seen a sugar post on here. I've posted similar anti-sugar things and gotten the same response. People want to think they can eat whatever they want just smaller amounts and that fixes everything. Most of those people end up regaining the weight...I know that was me. Look I've got much to loose but it's way easier if you can let go of the sugar, namely large amounts of fructose. I'm able to do things like intermittent fasting that I could never have done with my prior sugar intake. There's also the freedom from constant hunger and snacking and the hypoglycemia thing. People will tell you it's Psuedoscience and that you know nothing of how the metabolism works. They are wrong. Different foods are metabolized differently and effect your hormones differently. There is plenty of research out there that pans this out and has been sited repeatedly on this site. I would suggest you join us over at the paleo/primal group. Even if you don't go paleo you will find people who understand these concepts and are healthier for it.
FitnessTim wrote: » I'm surprised at how strongly people will defend sugar. I guess it is my fault for using the phrasing "sugar is bad". That's totally subjective and not true. Based on historical data, excess sugar does appear to be a contributing factor to health issues. Does that work for everyone? That may be an acceptable way to put it but it is unlikely to get the average person motivated to restrict their sugar intake. In my personal experience, not evidence but worth discussing, sugar is hard to control. About a year ago, I was in peak condition, eating right and exercising regularly. One day I decided to try Nutella. I had never had it before and I was curious about how it tasted. I spread some on a rice cake and took a taste. To me, it was the best thing I had ever tasted. Short time later my healthy lifestyle was derailed. I can't say that one taste of processed sugar was what sent me on a tailspin but it definitely made keeping my diet in check more difficult. From WebMd: INEXPLICABLE WEIGHT GAIN You stay away from burgers and drink diet soda. But sugar—both real and artificial—is the secret saboteur. When the pancreas senses sugar, the body releases insulin, which causes cells in the liver, muscle, and fat tissue to take up glucose from the blood, storing it as glycogen for energy. Eat too much at once, though, and insulin levels spike, then drop. The aftermath? You feel tired, then crave more sustenance to perk up. Your Brain on Sugar I'm not suggesting that sugar has the same effect on everyone. I'm not saying that people on a high sugar diet can't keep their weight under control. What I am saying is that based on all the evidence and studies, it is worth it for people to question whether or not sugar has a negative impact on their health and fitness goals.
INEXPLICABLE WEIGHT GAIN You stay away from burgers and drink diet soda. But sugar—both real and artificial—is the secret saboteur. When the pancreas senses sugar, the body releases insulin, which causes cells in the liver, muscle, and fat tissue to take up glucose from the blood, storing it as glycogen for energy. Eat too much at once, though, and insulin levels spike, then drop. The aftermath? You feel tired, then crave more sustenance to perk up.
flyingtanuki wrote: » tedboosalis7 wrote: » stevencloser wrote: » granturismo wrote: » Acg67 wrote: » And you do understand all carbs are sugars? Right? All sugars are carbohydrates, not all carbohydrates are sugars. No, all carbohydrates are sugars. They're synonyms. Not true. The difference between total carbs, fiber + sugar = starch. Fiber is NOT sugar. Fiber is included in total carbohydrates. See e.g., http://www.baruch.cuny.edu/wsas/departments/natural_science/biology/bio1003/organic.html Carbohydrates are the main energy-storage molecules in most organisms. They are also important structural components for many organisms. The building blocks of carbohydrates are small molecules called sugars, composed of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen. Carbohydrates are classified according to the number of sugar molecules they contain. Monosaccharides, such as glucose, fructose, ribose, and galactose, contain only one sugar molecule. Disaccharides, such as sucrose, maltose and lactose, contain two sugar molecules linked together. Polysaccharides, such as starch, glycogen, cellulose and chitin, contain many sugar molecules linked together. - Cellulose, a fiber, is a polysaccharide. - Carbohydrates are built of sugars.
FunkyTobias wrote: » tedboosalis7 wrote: » 3bambi3 wrote: » tedboosalis7 wrote: » lemurcat12 wrote: » tedboosalis7 wrote: » Fiber - the fiber in fruit mitigates the effects of fructose in metabolics. There is not enough fiber in yogurt to do that. Doesn't it depend on how you eat the yogurt? Lots of people eat it WITH fruit or on oatmeal, for example. I don't add sugar to yogurt (my personal preference is to eat it plain with berries or some other fruit), but if I did and otherwise ate it as I almost always do--with a breakfast including lots of veggies and some fruit--why would the bit of added sugar be an issue? Yes - context does matter - well I believe it does. I know you have posts that state the same - in a vacuum, sure there's an issue there - but if you eat it with something fibrous or add protein, it would help. Like white rice - eat white rice unto itself - you'll spike your blood sugar and make that rice store as fat - but that's in a vacuum. Eat white rice with protein and a fibrous veggie (non-starchy), now you balanced off the GI load. Great point! In a calorie deficit? And don't get started with your visceral fat argument. Because it's specious at best. There's nothing specious about visceral fat. I had it - and I reduced it down to minimal amounts. I think that's trivializing the argument. Calorie deficits are relative - if you eat a high protein diet, you raise your metabolism to account for the extra protein - it's a relative number. What's the number, you really don't know - it's a best guess - and it's a best estimation based upon the nutritional profile of the food you are eating. If glycogen is not needed by the muscles, you store it as fat. That doesn't equate to being in a calorie deficit. You can be in a deficit, satisfied muscle glycogen requirements and still store it as fat. Completely false.Only when CHO energy intake exceeds TEE does DNL in liver or adipose tissue contribute significantly to the whole-body energy economy. It is concluded that DNL is not the pathway of first resort for added dietary CHO, in humans.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10365981
Permission Problem You need the session.valid permission to do that.
