A Question About Sugar
Options
Replies
-
neanderthin wrote: »
When people say it doesn't matter, it's generally understood after our macro and micronutrients are met we can eat what we want.......people keep saying it but for some reason you have it in your head that it means to eat refined sugar and junk food all day, nobody has ever said that, but maybe you like to take the opportunity to point out the obvious over and over and over and over because somehow it makes you feel better. The possibility is that you really don't understand the gist of the conversations here, or trolling.Kyta, I think your posts are amazing.
SSLRunner you said "The bottom line is it doesn't matter what you eat and where your calories come from, the only requirement to lose weight is to eat less calories than you burn."
To me the bottom line is that it does matter. What you eat matters.
This.
No one has ever said that nutrition doesn't matter. The pretense--as in Kyta's post and the feigned misunderstanding of SLL Runner's post--that people do argue that nutrition doesn't matter is tiresome and why these threads never go anywhere.
The problem is that no one can come up with a legitimate reason why some sugar in the context of an overall balanced nutritious diet is bad or unhealthy, so they have to trot out strawmen.
Well, either that or they genuinely think that eating whatever you want in moderation means surviving on Twinkies and pop, which seems pretty odd to me, and more a personal issue than what anyone is arguing for, but whatever.
0 -
Never mind. I misunderstood.0
-
http://superhumanradio.com/the-role-of-dietary-sugars-and-de-novo-lipogenesis-in-non-alcoholic-fatty-liver-disease.html
Hint: Still comes down to calorie intake.
"Lustig must be blushing by now.
Yah, probably. But we aren’t done yet. What about all the talk of this de novo lipogenesis? This is the term used for the process whereby fatty acids are created from non-lipid precursors such as fructose, glucose, or amino acids. Using isotopic glucose or fructose, which lets us “follow” it through the body and see where it ends up, it was demonstrated that consuming 0.75g/kg bodyweight of fructose or glucose didn’t live up to Lustig’s expectations. Specifically, only 0.05% and 0.15% of fructose were converted to fatty acids and glycerol, respectively, while values after glucose consumption were close to 0%. These results have been confirmed by a systemic review of isotopic tracer studies that concluded the immediate metabolic fate of ingested fructose was not into triglycerides (<1%), but towards oxidation (45%) and conversion to glucose (41%)."
Do you have links to the studies referenced in the opinion piece you linked to? The study I'm using has nothing to do with Lustig, and shows fructose being turned into fat in a maintenance diet (no extra calories).
http://www.jci.org/articles/view/37385
Critical review of study welcome. I love to learn. 0 -
Everything in the article has links.http://superhumanradio.com/the-role-of-dietary-sugars-and-de-novo-lipogenesis-in-non-alcoholic-fatty-liver-disease.html
Hint: Still comes down to calorie intake.
"Lustig must be blushing by now.
Yah, probably. But we aren’t done yet. What about all the talk of this de novo lipogenesis? This is the term used for the process whereby fatty acids are created from non-lipid precursors such as fructose, glucose, or amino acids. Using isotopic glucose or fructose, which lets us “follow” it through the body and see where it ends up, it was demonstrated that consuming 0.75g/kg bodyweight of fructose or glucose didn’t live up to Lustig’s expectations. Specifically, only 0.05% and 0.15% of fructose were converted to fatty acids and glycerol, respectively, while values after glucose consumption were close to 0%. These results have been confirmed by a systemic review of isotopic tracer studies that concluded the immediate metabolic fate of ingested fructose was not into triglycerides (<1%), but towards oxidation (45%) and conversion to glucose (41%)."
Do you have links to the studies referenced in the opinion piece you linked to? The study I'm using has nothing to do with Lustig, and shows fructose being turned into fat in a maintenance diet (no extra calories).
http://www.jci.org/articles/view/37385
Critical review of study welcome. I love to learn.
0 -
Yes because the government is never wrong or misguiding the public.. do we need to discuss the low fat diet craze in the 90's which was backed by multiple countries.
Also, you can believe what you want but all the most credible scientists in the field suggest calories in vs out is what matters for weight loss, gain or maintenance.
GASP!!!! The government lies???0 -
Oooh oooh oooh....I'm so happy you asked! One of the reasons that sugar from whole fruit is less of a problem than HFCS or sucrose, is the natural serving size of fruit is smaller than the serving size given by many sugary foods. For example
1 apple (a higher-sugar fruit), 150 g 77 calories 10 grams sugar (about 5 from fructose, 3 from sucrose, and 2 from glucose, if you care), and 2 grams fiber, about a 1/2 gram protein, micros (i.e. 1% of daily need for iron, 8% of daily need for vitamin C, magnesium, calcium, potassium, B vitamins) antioxidant polyphenols, and lutein (which helps with vision)
1 can soda has 138 calories 33 grams sugar (generally HFCS), no fiber, no protein, and may contain caffeine which has its own issues for some people
So you see, having a glass of water with an apple instead of a soda would leave the dieter with less calories, and has fiber and protein which would help lower the glucose spike from the sugar, and delay digestion, so the dieter would be fuller longer (although adding protein, like a nut butter, to this snack would help with fullness for the dieter). When digestion is delayed, the calories are released with better timing with the needs of the body, so less is stored. Also the dieter would have the benefits of the non-caloric nutrition to the apple, such as protection from cancer, diabetes, stroke, vision problems, and having a healthy immune system, red blood cells, nervous system and vascular system.
The benefits of having less sugar in a serving, having the sugar processed more slowly, and having the sugar accompanied by healthy micronutrients are what makes an apple a better "healthier" snack than a can of pop, even though both get most of their calories from sugar.
Another difference between sucrose and HFCS and the fructose in fruit is that fructose is very sweet, and that sweetness discourages overeating. HFCS and sucrose, with their closer to 1-1 relationship of fructose and glucose, are less sweet, tantalizing the tastebuds without sastisfying them, and making overeating easier.
The evidence for the impact of sucrose/HFCS versus whole fruit and other "natural" sugars was found in a harvard study (among others) that found that sugar sweetened beverages were associated with weight gain, and foods high in "natural" sugars were not (dairy and fruit).
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/diet-lifestyle-weight-gain/
Fructose in particular is associated with the dreaded visceral fat, associated with coronary artery disease and type II diabetes. The can of soda has 3 times fructose/serving than the serving of fruit. The fruit also has nutrients that prevent diabetes and vascular disease.
If the goal is weight loss or maintenance, or better health and healthy body, foods that have "natural" sugars that intuitively come in smaller serving sizes (ie. 4.4 g sugar per 100 g raspberries) are "good" foods, and foods that have been packed (33+ g per serving) with less satisfying HFCS and sucrose are "bad".
If you just want to lose weight, and don't care about micronutrients, go ahead and eat whatever caused the obesity in the first place, just less of it. If interested in long term maintenance, look into a sustainable diet that includes healthy foods, like protein, dairy, and fruit/veggies, and relies less on processed foods with large amounts of sucrose/HFCS. Thank you so much for your question....I've been dying to say that since the last sugar thread got shut down by the moderators!
No one on this board will disagree with you that an apple is more nutrient dense than a soda. What the majority of MFP will promote is finding a balanced diet, of which, you would be getting 80% to 90% of your diet from fruits, veggies, lean meats, fish, legumes... pretty much any nutrient dense item. Where these conversations always fail, is the examples are extreme and do not follow in the context of one person's diets. Lets take your example, you only compare two foods in isolation. But what happens when I have a soda with a big plate of veggies. I am then drinking something with HFCS and eating foods high in vitamins, minerals and fiber.
Regarding your Harvard study, it's an article about making smaller changes in your diet to help maintain your weight. Essentially, it suggest reducing the intake of high calorie, nutrient void foods with nutrient dense, lower calorie foods.... kind of a no brainer. This is what MFP will teach you as well. We know it's a lot easier to maintain your weight if you are eating lower calorie foods that keep you full for long.
HFCS & fructose are not associated with diseases... obesity is. Below is a article from the NIH.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20471804
"The progressive replacement of sucrose by HFCS is however unlikely to be directly involved in the epidemy of metabolic disease, because HFCS appears to have basically the same metabolic effects as sucrose. Consumption of sweetened beverages is however clearly associated with excess calorie intake, and an increased risk of diabetes and cardiovascular diseases through an increase in body weight. This has led to the recommendation to limit the daily intake of sugar calories."
Below is also
a good article on sugar. And links to many other studies if you are interested.
http://www.fitnessbaddies.com/your-problem-with-sugar-is-the-problem-with-sugar/
Oh Tappy, Tappy....Are the soda producers not paying you off anymore? Your literature reviews holding fructose innocent of metabolic damage are losing steam...A more recent review by the writer of your literature review:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22795319
"In humans, there is strong evidence, based on several intervention trials, that fructose overfeeding increases fasting and postprandial plasma triglyceride concentrations, which are related to stimulation of hepatic de novo lipogenesis and VLDL-TG secretion, together with decreased VLDL-TG clearance."
" In humans, a short-term fructose overfeeding stimulates de novo lipogenesis and significantly increases intrahepatic fat concentration"
The only defence Tappy can find for fructose is that we have not yet had intense clinical trials long enough (i.e. more than a few weeks) to show that the liver fat caused by fructose will eventually cause non-alcoholic liver disease (but studies to date indicate that is a logical conclusion).
I'm not saying that sugar is the devil. It can be a part of a healthy diet. However, if you are looking for a place to cut calories, losing added sugars can help people get into a deficit without sacrificing nutrition. Also, when not exercising, losing all-over fat while adding on to visceral fat (which fructose over-consumption leads to) will lead to a proportionally larger waistline, with the associated aesthetic and health implications
Side note - exercise targets visceral fat, which is why I don`t understand why everyone insists on saying you don`t need to exercise to lose fat. I mean, yes, you will lose weight, but the aesthetic, morale, and health benefits of exercise are such that I prefer to lose weight by exercise than by calorie tracking - both is just faster. But that`s just what works for me, so I don`t recommend it to anyone else.-1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »
When people say it doesn't matter, it's generally understood after our macro and micronutrients are met we can eat what we want.......people keep saying it but for some reason you have it in your head that it means to eat refined sugar and junk food all day, nobody has ever said that, but maybe you like to take the opportunity to point out the obvious over and over and over and over because somehow it makes you feel better. The possibility is that you really don't understand the gist of the conversations here, or trolling.Kyta, I think your posts are amazing.
SSLRunner you said "The bottom line is it doesn't matter what you eat and where your calories come from, the only requirement to lose weight is to eat less calories than you burn."
To me the bottom line is that it does matter. What you eat matters.
This.
No one has ever said that nutrition doesn't matter. The pretense--as in Kyta's post and the feigned misunderstanding of SLL Runner's post--that people do argue that nutrition doesn't matter is tiresome and why these threads never go anywhere.
The problem is that no one can come up with a legitimate reason why some sugar in the context of an overall balanced nutritious diet is bad or unhealthy, so they have to trot out strawmen.
Well, either that or they genuinely think that eating whatever you want in moderation means surviving on Twinkies and pop, which seems pretty odd to me, and more a personal issue than what anyone is arguing for, but whatever.
So, when people are saying (a) "It doesn`t matter what you eat as long as you are in a deficit" what they mean is (b) "Of course it matters what you eat, and added sugars add a lot of calories without having a lot of nutrition, so you should be eating healthy most of the time. As long as you are eating a healthy, balanced diet then you can have the occasional treat,"? Cause I'm pretty sure that A and B don't equal each other in most people's minds. If they do, then we all agree, though 0 -
http://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/6/12/5679/htm
Oooh oooh oooh....I'm so happy you asked! One of the reasons that sugar from whole fruit is less of a problem than HFCS or sucrose, is the natural serving size of fruit is smaller than the serving size given by many sugary foods. For example
1 apple (a higher-sugar fruit), 150 g 77 calories 10 grams sugar (about 5 from fructose, 3 from sucrose, and 2 from glucose, if you care), and 2 grams fiber, about a 1/2 gram protein, micros (i.e. 1% of daily need for iron, 8% of daily need for vitamin C, magnesium, calcium, potassium, B vitamins) antioxidant polyphenols, and lutein (which helps with vision)
1 can soda has 138 calories 33 grams sugar (generally HFCS), no fiber, no protein, and may contain caffeine which has its own issues for some people
So you see, having a glass of water with an apple instead of a soda would leave the dieter with less calories, and has fiber and protein which would help lower the glucose spike from the sugar, and delay digestion, so the dieter would be fuller longer (although adding protein, like a nut butter, to this snack would help with fullness for the dieter). When digestion is delayed, the calories are released with better timing with the needs of the body, so less is stored. Also the dieter would have the benefits of the non-caloric nutrition to the apple, such as protection from cancer, diabetes, stroke, vision problems, and having a healthy immune system, red blood cells, nervous system and vascular system.
The benefits of having less sugar in a serving, having the sugar processed more slowly, and having the sugar accompanied by healthy micronutrients are what makes an apple a better "healthier" snack than a can of pop, even though both get most of their calories from sugar.
Another difference between sucrose and HFCS and the fructose in fruit is that fructose is very sweet, and that sweetness discourages overeating. HFCS and sucrose, with their closer to 1-1 relationship of fructose and glucose, are less sweet, tantalizing the tastebuds without sastisfying them, and making overeating easier.
The evidence for the impact of sucrose/HFCS versus whole fruit and other "natural" sugars was found in a harvard study (among others) that found that sugar sweetened beverages were associated with weight gain, and foods high in "natural" sugars were not (dairy and fruit).
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/diet-lifestyle-weight-gain/
Fructose in particular is associated with the dreaded visceral fat, associated with coronary artery disease and type II diabetes. The can of soda has 3 times fructose/serving than the serving of fruit. The fruit also has nutrients that prevent diabetes and vascular disease.
If the goal is weight loss or maintenance, or better health and healthy body, foods that have "natural" sugars that intuitively come in smaller serving sizes (ie. 4.4 g sugar per 100 g raspberries) are "good" foods, and foods that have been packed (33+ g per serving) with less satisfying HFCS and sucrose are "bad".
If you just want to lose weight, and don't care about micronutrients, go ahead and eat whatever caused the obesity in the first place, just less of it. If interested in long term maintenance, look into a sustainable diet that includes healthy foods, like protein, dairy, and fruit/veggies, and relies less on processed foods with large amounts of sucrose/HFCS. Thank you so much for your question....I've been dying to say that since the last sugar thread got shut down by the moderators!
No one on this board will disagree with you that an apple is more nutrient dense than a soda. What the majority of MFP will promote is finding a balanced diet, of which, you would be getting 80% to 90% of your diet from fruits, veggies, lean meats, fish, legumes... pretty much any nutrient dense item. Where these conversations always fail, is the examples are extreme and do not follow in the context of one person's diets. Lets take your example, you only compare two foods in isolation. But what happens when I have a soda with a big plate of veggies. I am then drinking something with HFCS and eating foods high in vitamins, minerals and fiber.
Regarding your Harvard study, it's an article about making smaller changes in your diet to help maintain your weight. Essentially, it suggest reducing the intake of high calorie, nutrient void foods with nutrient dense, lower calorie foods.... kind of a no brainer. This is what MFP will teach you as well. We know it's a lot easier to maintain your weight if you are eating lower calorie foods that keep you full for long.
HFCS & fructose are not associated with diseases... obesity is. Below is a article from the NIH.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20471804
"The progressive replacement of sucrose by HFCS is however unlikely to be directly involved in the epidemy of metabolic disease, because HFCS appears to have basically the same metabolic effects as sucrose. Consumption of sweetened beverages is however clearly associated with excess calorie intake, and an increased risk of diabetes and cardiovascular diseases through an increase in body weight. This has led to the recommendation to limit the daily intake of sugar calories."
Below is also
a good article on sugar. And links to many other studies if you are interested.
http://www.fitnessbaddies.com/your-problem-with-sugar-is-the-problem-with-sugar/
Oh Tappy, Tappy....Are the soda producers not paying you off anymore? Your literature reviews holding fructose innocent of metabolic damage are losing steam...A more recent review by the writer of your literature review:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22795319
"In humans, there is strong evidence, based on several intervention trials, that fructose overfeeding increases fasting and postprandial plasma triglyceride concentrations, which are related to stimulation of hepatic de novo lipogenesis and VLDL-TG secretion, together with decreased VLDL-TG clearance."
" In humans, a short-term fructose overfeeding stimulates de novo lipogenesis and significantly increases intrahepatic fat concentration"
The only defence Tappy can find for fructose is that we have not yet had intense clinical trials long enough (i.e. more than a few weeks) to show that the liver fat caused by fructose will eventually cause non-alcoholic liver disease (but studies to date indicate that is a logical conclusion).
I'm not saying that sugar is the devil. It can be a part of a healthy diet. However, if you are looking for a place to cut calories, losing added sugars can help people get into a deficit without sacrificing nutrition. Also, when not exercising, losing all-over fat while adding on to visceral fat (which fructose over-consumption leads to) will lead to a proportionally larger waistline, with the associated aesthetic and health implications
Side note - exercise targets visceral fat, which is why I don`t understand why everyone insists on saying you don`t need to exercise to lose fat. I mean, yes, you will lose weight, but the aesthetic, morale, and health benefits of exercise are such that I prefer to lose weight by exercise than by calorie tracking - both is just faster. But that`s just what works for me, so I don`t recommend it to anyone else.
Excess energy, not sugar, let alone fructose main culprit behind NAFLD, study says, previous studies simply flawed, scientist say: "The use of hypercaloric, supra-physiological doses in intervention trials has been a major confounding factor and whether or not dietary sugars, including fructose, at typically consumed population levels, effect hepatic lipogenesis and NAFLD pathogenesis in humans independently of excess energy remains unresolved."
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »
When people say it doesn't matter, it's generally understood after our macro and micronutrients are met we can eat what we want.......people keep saying it but for some reason you have it in your head that it means to eat refined sugar and junk food all day, nobody has ever said that, but maybe you like to take the opportunity to point out the obvious over and over and over and over because somehow it makes you feel better. The possibility is that you really don't understand the gist of the conversations here, or trolling.Kyta, I think your posts are amazing.
SSLRunner you said "The bottom line is it doesn't matter what you eat and where your calories come from, the only requirement to lose weight is to eat less calories than you burn."
To me the bottom line is that it does matter. What you eat matters.
This.
No one has ever said that nutrition doesn't matter. The pretense--as in Kyta's post and the feigned misunderstanding of SLL Runner's post--that people do argue that nutrition doesn't matter is tiresome and why these threads never go anywhere.
The problem is that no one can come up with a legitimate reason why some sugar in the context of an overall balanced nutritious diet is bad or unhealthy, so they have to trot out strawmen.
Well, either that or they genuinely think that eating whatever you want in moderation means surviving on Twinkies and pop, which seems pretty odd to me, and more a personal issue than what anyone is arguing for, but whatever.
So, when people are saying (a) "It doesn`t matter what you eat as long as you are in a deficit" what they mean is (b) "Of course it matters what you eat, and added sugars add a lot of calories without having a lot of nutrition, so you should be eating healthy most of the time. As long as you are eating a healthy, balanced diet then you can have the occasional treat,"? Cause I'm pretty sure that A and B don't equal each other in most people's minds. If they do, then we all agree, though
define "healthy"…
the fact is food is not inherently healthy or unhealthy or good or bad, it is just food that you use for energy.
I probably eat get about 400 calories a day from ice cream and cookies does that mean that I am eating 'unhealthy'? No, it just means I use them to round out my calorie and macro needs for the day.
context is what matters…not food type.
So when they say eat whatever you want and stay in a deficit, yea, that is what they mean. Eat what you want that fits into your calorie and macro needs…
and why do the "sugar is evil" folks always trout out the "well if you want to eat garbage" all day straw man? I have yet to find one person advocating a diet consisting of 100% ice cream….0 -
define "healthy"…
the fact is food is not inherently healthy or unhealthy or good or bad, it is just food that you use for energy.
I probably eat get about 400 calories a day from ice cream and cookies does that mean that I am eating 'unhealthy'? No, it just means I use them to round out my calorie and macro needs for the day.
context is what matters…not food type.
So when they say eat whatever you want and stay in a deficit, yea, that is what they mean. Eat what you want that fits into your calorie and macro needs…
and why do the "sugar is evil" folks always trout out the "well if you want to eat garbage" all day straw man? I have yet to find one person advocating a diet consisting of 100% ice cream….prettykitty1515 wrote: »So what? I have a 55-year-old friend, 5' 10', 145 lbs., can eat whatever he wants whenever he wants, and can't gain weight. Just because you can eat 400 calories a day from ice cream an and cookies doesn't mean anybody can.
To get a real education, read Pure, White and Deadly by John Yudkin.
Yes, nobody here is advocating a diet consisting of 100% ice cream. But they are stating IN THEORY, you could eat 1,500 calories of ice cream everyday for 6 months, or eat 1,500 calories of a low-sugar, low-carb diet for 6 months, and at the end of the 6 months you would weigh exactly the same, to the tenth of an ounce.
No. The book is biased. Biased material is NOT reliable or accurate. Also, the book holds no scientific value because it is not peer-reviewed.0 -
Oh Tappy, Tappy....Are the soda producers not paying you off anymore? Your literature reviews holding fructose innocent of metabolic damage are losing steam...A more recent review by the writer of your literature review:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22795319
"In humans, there is strong evidence, based on several intervention trials, that fructose overfeeding increases fasting and postprandial plasma triglyceride concentrations, which are related to stimulation of hepatic de novo lipogenesis and VLDL-TG secretion, together with decreased VLDL-TG clearance."
" In humans, a short-term fructose overfeeding stimulates de novo lipogenesis and significantly increases intrahepatic fat concentration"
The only defence Tappy can find for fructose is that we have not yet had intense clinical trials long enough (i.e. more than a few weeks) to show that the liver fat caused by fructose will eventually cause non-alcoholic liver disease (but studies to date indicate that is a logical conclusion).
I'm not saying that sugar is the devil. It can be a part of a healthy diet. However, if you are looking for a place to cut calories, losing added sugars can help people get into a deficit without sacrificing nutrition. Also, when not exercising, losing all-over fat while adding on to visceral fat (which fructose over-consumption leads to) will lead to a proportionally larger waistline, with the associated aesthetic and health implications
Side note - exercise targets visceral fat, which is why I don`t understand why everyone insists on saying you don`t need to exercise to lose fat. I mean, yes, you will lose weight, but the aesthetic, morale, and health benefits of exercise are such that I prefer to lose weight by exercise than by calorie tracking - both is just faster. But that`s just what works for me, so I don`t recommend it to anyone else.
Personally, what I find funny about your link is the below. And considering the majority of the recommendations is to find a balanced diet. What's even more ironic even your own link will back what I am saying. I have highlighted the important part.
"However, in contrast to animal models, fructose intakes as high as 200 g/day in humans only modestly decreases hepatic insulin sensitivity, and has no effect on no whole body (muscle) insulin sensitivity. A possible explanation may be that insulin resistance and dysglycemia develop mostly in presence of sustained fructose exposures associated with changes in body composition. Such effects are observed with high daily fructose intakes, and there is no solid evidence that fructose, when consumed in moderate amounts, has deleterious effects."
I would also like to point out that 200g of straight fructose is more than the average person would eat. And that is exactly the issue with all of these studies.. they go so outside the realm of what a typical human would have.
I think Alan Alagon has a good discussion regarding fructose:
"In the single human study I’m aware of that linked fructose to a greater next-day appetite in a subset of the subjects, 30% of total daily energy intake was in the form of free fructose [12]. This amounts to 135 grams, which is the equivalent of 6-7 non-diet soft drinks. Is it really that groundbreaking to think that polishing off a half-dozen soft drinks per day is not a good idea? Demonizing fructose without mentioning the dose-dependent nature of its effects is intellectually dishonest. Like anything else, fructose consumed in gross chronic excess can lead to problems, while moderate amounts are neutral, and in some cases beneficial [13-15]."
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/
0 -
prettykitty1515 wrote: »njd1979 wrote:
define "healthy"…
the fact is food is not inherently healthy or unhealthy or good or bad, it is just food that you use for energy.
I probably eat get about 400 calories a day from ice cream and cookies does that mean that I am eating 'unhealthy'? No, it just means I use them to round out my calorie and macro needs for the day.
context is what matters…not food type.
So when they say eat whatever you want and stay in a deficit, yea, that is what they mean. Eat what you want that fits into your calorie and macro needs…
and why do the "sugar is evil" folks always trout out the "well if you want to eat garbage" all day straw man? I have yet to find one person advocating a diet consisting of 100% ice cream….
=============================================
So what? I have a 55-year-old friend, 5' 10', 145 lbs., can eat whatever he wants whenever he wants, and can't gain weight. Just because you can eat 400 calories a day from ice cream an and cookies doesn't mean anybody can.
To get a real education, read Pure, White and Deadly by John Yudkin.
Yes, nobody here is advocating a diet consisting of 100% ice cream. But they are stating IN THEORY, you could eat 1,500 calories of ice cream everyday for 6 months, or eat 1,500 calories of a low-sugar, low-carb diet for 6 months, and at the end of the 6 months you would weigh exactly the same, to the tenth of an ounce.
you don't read so well do you?
I said, I eat 400 calories of ice creme and cookies, is that unhealthy?
The point of my post is that it is impossible to define healthy vs unhealthy …
No one has ever said that you would look the same if you ate 1500 calories of ice cream vs 1500 of low sugar/low carb…< please find me the person making THAT argument...
Here is the cliff notes version you < try to read it and comprehend it..
Calories deficit for weight loss < so yes, you could eat 1500 of ice cream vs 1500 of "healthy" (whatever that is) and you would lose the same amount of weight.
Macros and Micros for body composition < so if you care about body comp, overall health etc, then a diet of 100% ice cream would be idiotic…
if a real education means demonizing sugar and reading pseudo-science, I will pass and stick with what I have...
-1 -
christinev297 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »BlueButterfly94 wrote: »If it's sugar from fruit, I'm not too bothered about it with my diet. But when it comes to cane sugar/etc... That's where I try to limit myself. Because that causes problems with my heart and makes me crave more unhealthy foods.
Sugar FROM fruit is a concern. Sugar IN fruit not as much.
Like sugar in Apple juice is a health concern whereas the sugar from eating an apple would not carry the same health concerns.
because plain fruit juice minus the pulp/fibre is a glass of pretty much high calorie nothingness. Whereas the whole fruit has got the total, nothing extracted. I get what you mean..... I think lol
independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/eating-fruit-significantly-cuts-diabetes-risk--but-drinking-juice-increases-it-says-study-8791472.html
Eating fruit significantly cuts diabetes risk - but drinking juice INCREASES it, says study
Christinev297 I think this study indicates when it comes to fruit and health that the whole is better than a part (just the juice of the fruit).
Those who take a common sense approach to trying to prevent Type 2 Diabetes and are studying the science behind good diets are sure to already understand eating an apple would be preferred to just drinking the juice from the same apple on most any level.
0 -
Honest truth is I don't know. All I can say from years of dieting, trial & error, is that if I don't keep my refined sugar low, I will look awful even though I lose the weight.
I find a massive difference between refined sugars (the stuff in processed foods and which you add to your tea), and naturally occurring sugars (like in fruit). But again, I have no science to back that up.
I go absolute zero on refined sugars, but really have no limit on natural sugars.0 -
I agree ellisboyd1, I have never had a headache from over indulging in fresh fruit but I certainly have a headache after eating a bag of lollies.
0 -
Why are the only options when it comes to lollies none at all or the whole bag?0
-
GaleHawkins wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »BlueButterfly94 wrote: »If it's sugar from fruit, I'm not too bothered about it with my diet. But when it comes to cane sugar/etc... That's where I try to limit myself. Because that causes problems with my heart and makes me crave more unhealthy foods.
Sugar FROM fruit is a concern. Sugar IN fruit not as much.
Like sugar in Apple juice is a health concern whereas the sugar from eating an apple would not carry the same health concerns.
because plain fruit juice minus the pulp/fibre is a glass of pretty much high calorie nothingness. Whereas the whole fruit has got the total, nothing extracted. I get what you mean..... I think lol
independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/eating-fruit-significantly-cuts-diabetes-risk--but-drinking-juice-increases-it-says-study-8791472.html
Eating fruit significantly cuts diabetes risk - but drinking juice INCREASES it, says study
Christinev297 I think this study indicates when it comes to fruit and health that the whole is better than a part (just the juice of the fruit).
Those who take a common sense approach to trying to prevent Type 2 Diabetes and are studying the science behind good diets are sure to already understand eating an apple would be preferred to just drinking the juice from the same apple on most any level.
From your article....
"Some of the findings are based on a number of assumptions and models which may have distorted the results significantly."0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 959 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions