A Question About Sugar
Replies
-
HI Jason, just out of interest, has any what has been said helped you in any way or are you just as confused as when you first asked your question? So much has been going on that I must admit I have not paid a lot of attention to your problem.
I have seen you cope a lot of ridicule and I was sorry to see that but I also noticed that you had the courage to keep coming back. Good for you and good luck with your efforts to gain weight. I was a skinny little kid who ate her way through life and never gained weight so I hope you find the answer to your problem that is right for you.
[/quote]Thanks Leena. To be honest it didn't get addressed much, but I have some idea of some things to tweak with my diet and lifestyle.
0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »I'm going to play devil's advocate here and say Deidre's reference to bodybuilders depends on how you define it. Standing next to my skinny frame, most of you would indeed look like bodybuilders, LOL.
Jason, and this is intended to be a serious, non-snarky piece of advice, if you are having problems gaining weight, and it seems as though you are wanting to, I would really look to the fundamental reasons why. Bulking is not easy, I know. Its not just a case as cramming as much food down your mouth or even eating pop-tarts all day, there are a lot of other variables at play - many of which are head games. The concept is simple - eat at a reasonable caloric surplus, get enough protein and get on a good progressive lifting routine. Simple is not always easy though. I would look to see what part of that equation is causing issues and work to address that.0 -
Sara, I appreciate your response. A big part of the issue I'm having to deal with for bulking is the fact that my training setup is not optimal, and I'm not sure that there are any programs out there that would accommodate my setup. So, I've basically been trying to figure out my own thing as far as training goes.ForecasterJason wrote: »I'm going to play devil's advocate here and say Deidre's reference to bodybuilders depends on how you define it. Standing next to my skinny frame, most of you would indeed look like bodybuilders, LOL.
Jason, and this is intended to be a serious, non-snarky piece of advice, if you are having problems gaining weight, and it seems as though you are wanting to, I would really look to the fundamental reasons why. Bulking is not easy, I know. Its not just a case as cramming as much food down your mouth or even eating pop-tarts all day, there are a lot of other variables at play - many of which are head games. The concept is simple - eat at a reasonable caloric surplus, get enough protein and get on a good progressive lifting routine. Simple is not always easy though. I would look to see what part of that equation is causing issues and work to address that.
Likewise, I've also had a tough time figuring out how much volume it takes to stimulate various rates of growth. With some of the issues I've had getting into a significant calorie surplus, I'm ok with settling for a lower than maximum rate.
0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Sara, I appreciate your response. A big part of the issue I'm having to deal with for bulking is the fact that my training setup is not optimal, and I'm not sure that there are any programs out there that would accommodate my setup. So, I've basically been trying to figure out my own thing as far as training goes.ForecasterJason wrote: »I'm going to play devil's advocate here and say Deidre's reference to bodybuilders depends on how you define it. Standing next to my skinny frame, most of you would indeed look like bodybuilders, LOL.
Jason, and this is intended to be a serious, non-snarky piece of advice, if you are having problems gaining weight, and it seems as though you are wanting to, I would really look to the fundamental reasons why. Bulking is not easy, I know. Its not just a case as cramming as much food down your mouth or even eating pop-tarts all day, there are a lot of other variables at play - many of which are head games. The concept is simple - eat at a reasonable caloric surplus, get enough protein and get on a good progressive lifting routine. Simple is not always easy though. I would look to see what part of that equation is causing issues and work to address that.
Likewise, I've also had a tough time figuring out how much volume it takes to stimulate various rates of growth. With some of the issues I've had getting into a significant calorie surplus, I'm ok with settling for a lower than maximum rate.
So as not to derail the thread, if you want to, you can PM me your set up so I can see if there are routines that may be adapted to suit your circumstances better. I can also send you some information regarding rules of thumb about how much volume you need.0 -
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Its really silly to totally discount peer-reviewed studies because of the funding. Take it into account - yes. Discount it entirely - no.
What exactly do you mean by the herd mentality - or is that another passive aggressive dig at all the people that disagree with your stance?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_mentality
0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »
Its really silly to totally discount peer-reviewed studies because of the funding. Take it into account - yes. Discount it entirely - no.
What exactly do you mean by the herd mentality - or is that another passive aggressive dig at all the people that disagree with your stance?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_mentality
/smh. I know what herd mentality means - I meant in the context of your post.
However, my assumption is that you are playing out that passive aggressive streak - because a majority of people disagree with you, they cannot be right, but are taking on this herd mentality.
It has nothing to do with the fact that they individually may actually disagree and have a valid and sound base for doing so, right?.
Weak logic with the use of the herd mentality in order to disagree with what people are saying.0 -
DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »
I've put together a chart of four foods considered to be carbohydrates: mixed vegetables, Oreos, banana, spaghetti. The foods are all weighted to 200 calories.
For my percentages, I'm using a TDEE of 2200 with 40 percent carb (220 g), 30 percent fat (74 g), 30 percent protein (165 g), 28 grams of fiber.
Here are a couple of rankings, put in the order of what I consider best to worst:
Amount you get for 200 calories:
Veg - 500 grams
Bananas -- 225 grams
Spaghetti -- 57 grams
Oreos -- 42 grams
How closely aligned are the calories and macros (10% calories, 10% protein, 10% fat, 10% carbs):
Veg -- 500 grams, very nearly 10% across fat, protein, carbs
Spaghetti - 57 grams, carbs and protein are near the 10%; protein is 5%
Oreos -- 42 grams, carbs and fat are near the 10%, protein is 1%
Bananas -- 225 grams, carbs 23%, fat 1%, protein 1.5%
Dietary fiber:
Veg - 42%
Banana - 21%
Spaghetti - 7%
Oreos - 4.5%
These last two are based on amounts per 200 calories:
Vitamins:
Veg - most
Banana - more
Spaghetti - Iron
Oreos -- Iron
Saturated Fat
Spaghetti / Vegetables -- lowest
Banana -- middle
Oreos -- highest
Cholesterol:
They all win! 0 across the board
Mixed vegetables come out in the top position five times.
Oreos are in last position 4 out of 5 times.
So, if I wanted to make a decision about what to eat based on which food would give me the maximum bulk for calories, the optimum combination of macros, the most dietary fiber, the most vitamins, and the least saturated fat, I'd choose vegetables.
I don't seen any scenario where I'd choose Oreos for optimum benefits.
It would appear that the only reason I'd choose Oreos would be to appease my sweet tooth.
Which is weird, since the Oreos and the vegetables have the lowest number of carbs --- shouldn't Oreos taste just like vegetables, since the body can't tell the difference between sugar from vegetables, fruit, pasta, or cookies?
Thanks for taking the time to make the visual. It does highlight the options to eat 200 calories can be vary greatly.
0 -
Calories in < calories out = weight loss is obviously correct. From that standpoint alone, it doesn't matter WHAT you eat, it could be woodchips or banana skins or any kind of food (and I use that term loosely).
In terms of health consequences, however, it DOES matter what you consume. Woodchips are a *tad* overweighted on fiber. God only knows what banana skins do to you. Or corn shucks or deepfried tarantulas...whatever.
If you want to lose weight to feel good, then you need to pay attention to more than just the calories in/calories out equation. Otherwise, why are you losing weight? Losing weight and feeling crappy when you reach your goal doesn't seem like a good tradeoff to me. Just sayin.
As for the SugarScience site, sure it has an agenda. There aren't any sites out there which DON'T have an agenda, because even those sites which purport to be unbiased (and I doubt such a thing really exists) have an agenda. Like this one, which appears to be aggressively science-based, as if he's the Neil deGrasse Tyson of nutrition: nutrevolve.blogspot.com/search?q=home0 -
How do you know what she assumes? If she didn't say it, you cannot make up what she's thinking and then attack her for it. Well, you can, but it's ridiculous.DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »
Such as context.
You are assuming that saturated fats are bad, that high fiber is always good, that more is better and completely ignoring personal circumstances such as activity levels, preference and adherence.
Also, she was asking you what you meant about "missing variables." You didn't answer that.
0 -
How do you know what she assumes? If she didn't say it, you cannot make up what she's thinking and then attack her for it. Well, you can, but it's ridiculous.DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »
Such as context.
You are assuming that saturated fats are bad, that high fiber is always good, that more is better and completely ignoring personal circumstances such as activity levels, preference and adherence.
Also, she was asking you what you meant about "missing variables." You didn't answer that.
I did answer, and yes I can based on her actual post.
If she did not, then she can tell me.
Also lol at that being attacking.
0 -
You didn't answer. What variables was she missing?
How do you know what she assumes? If she didn't say it, you cannot make up what she's thinking and then attack her for it. Well, you can, but it's ridiculous.DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »
Such as context.
You are assuming that saturated fats are bad, that high fiber is always good, that more is better and completely ignoring personal circumstances such as activity levels, preference and adherence.
Also, she was asking you what you meant about "missing variables." You didn't answer that.
I did answer, and yes I can based on her actual post.
If she did not, then she can tell me.
Also lol at that being attacking.
0 -
They mostly come at night. Mostly.DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »tigersword wrote: »
shows an absolute 100% complete lack of understanding of the concept at all.
Oh bless your heart honey -- I'm steering the conversation away from concepts and towards particulars.
Also, I am going to make a button that says "An absolute 100% complete lack of understanding."
It'll go next to my button that says "They are usually almost always never home."
0 -
This thread...it's still here.
Sadly, nobody got me any of these this Christmas...it's heartbreaking.
There's always Valentine's Day.
0 -
You didn't answer. What variables was she missing?
How do you know what she assumes? If she didn't say it, you cannot make up what she's thinking and then attack her for it. Well, you can, but it's ridiculous.DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »
Such as context.
You are assuming that saturated fats are bad, that high fiber is always good, that more is better and completely ignoring personal circumstances such as activity levels, preference and adherence.
Also, she was asking you what you meant about "missing variables." You didn't answer that.
I did answer, and yes I can based on her actual post.
If she did not, then she can tell me.
Also lol at that being attacking.
Why don't you read the thread more carefully.0 -
My sugar is usually over what MFP says it should be, but I think that might be from the fruits I eat which are not supposed to be the "bad" kind of sugar. You can look at the Mayo Clinic's daily requirements page to see how much you should limit sugar and what percentage you can eat of added sugar.0
-
You say she's missing variables. She asks which ones. You tell her what you assume her assumptions are.
You didn't answer. What variables was she missing?
How do you know what she assumes? If she didn't say it, you cannot make up what she's thinking and then attack her for it. Well, you can, but it's ridiculous.DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »
Such as context.
You are assuming that saturated fats are bad, that high fiber is always good, that more is better and completely ignoring personal circumstances such as activity levels, preference and adherence.
Also, she was asking you what you meant about "missing variables." You didn't answer that.
I did answer, and yes I can based on her actual post.
If she did not, then she can tell me.
Also lol at that being attacking.
Why don't you read the thread more carefully.
Putting aside the fact that those assumptions were made up by you, is that your answer? Her assumptions were the key variables she was missing?
0 -
I agree SD2bfit, it is those processed food that seem to get me as well. We don't have Twinkies here, are they a chocolate bar or what?
What?!? No Twinkies?
Actually, IMHO, you're not missing much, but it's fun to eat one every 10th year or so, just to remember why you weren't eating them to begin with.
Reference: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twinkie
0 -
You say she's missing variables. She asks which ones. You tell her what you assume her assumptions are.
You didn't answer. What variables was she missing?
How do you know what she assumes? If she didn't say it, you cannot make up what she's thinking and then attack her for it. Well, you can, but it's ridiculous.DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »
Such as context.
You are assuming that saturated fats are bad, that high fiber is always good, that more is better and completely ignoring personal circumstances such as activity levels, preference and adherence.
Also, she was asking you what you meant about "missing variables." You didn't answer that.
I did answer, and yes I can based on her actual post.
If she did not, then she can tell me.
Also lol at that being attacking.
Why don't you read the thread more carefully.
Putting aside the fact that those assumptions were made up by you, is that your answer? Her assumptions were the key variables she was missing?
Good lawd.
First of all - she actually said what she thought was important in her actual post.
Secondly, and again...read the thread more carefully. I gave an example of the big variable she was missing - context.
She has already responded - if my assumptions were wrong - you think she may have said so.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
billieljaime wrote: »I like twinkies too, those have sugar right?
dont these modern twinkies not taste quite as good as the ones i remember from the 70s and 80s or were those just the taste buds of my youth?
are modern twinkies different?
Random aside, I don't think I have actually ever had a twinkie. Donuts are far more appealing 0 -
billieljaime wrote: »I like twinkies too, those have sugar right?
dont these modern twinkies not taste quite as good as the ones i remember from the 70s and 80s or were those just the taste buds of my youth?
are modern twinkies different?
They're better. The cake is moister and there's less cake and more crème filling. Better.
Is the cake part more like a donut or is it more like, well cake? I am curious now.
0 -
billieljaime wrote: »I like twinkies too, those have sugar right?
dont these modern twinkies not taste quite as good as the ones i remember from the 70s and 80s or were those just the taste buds of my youth?
are modern twinkies different?
I think they might not taste as good, but since it had been so long since my previous Twinkie, I can't be sure! There are less calories in the new ones.0 -
You said she missed quite a few. "Context" is debatable as a variabe, but I'll leave that be.
You say she's missing variables. She asks which ones. You tell her what you assume her assumptions are.
You didn't answer. What variables was she missing?
How do you know what she assumes? If she didn't say it, you cannot make up what she's thinking and then attack her for it. Well, you can, but it's ridiculous.DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »
Such as context.
You are assuming that saturated fats are bad, that high fiber is always good, that more is better and completely ignoring personal circumstances such as activity levels, preference and adherence.
Also, she was asking you what you meant about "missing variables." You didn't answer that.
I did answer, and yes I can based on her actual post.
If she did not, then she can tell me.
Also lol at that being attacking.
Why don't you read the thread more carefully.
Putting aside the fact that those assumptions were made up by you, is that your answer? Her assumptions were the key variables she was missing?
Good lawd.
First of all - she actually said what she thought was important in her actual post.
Secondly, and again...read the thread more carefully. I gave an example of the big variable she was missing - context.
She has already responded - if my assumptions were wrong - you think she may have said so.
What were the rest of the "quite a few variables"?
0 -
You said she missed quite a few. "Context" is debatable as a variabe, but I'll leave that be.
You say she's missing variables. She asks which ones. You tell her what you assume her assumptions are.
You didn't answer. What variables was she missing?
How do you know what she assumes? If she didn't say it, you cannot make up what she's thinking and then attack her for it. Well, you can, but it's ridiculous.DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »
Such as context.
You are assuming that saturated fats are bad, that high fiber is always good, that more is better and completely ignoring personal circumstances such as activity levels, preference and adherence.
Also, she was asking you what you meant about "missing variables." You didn't answer that.
I did answer, and yes I can based on her actual post.
If she did not, then she can tell me.
Also lol at that being attacking.
Why don't you read the thread more carefully.
Putting aside the fact that those assumptions were made up by you, is that your answer? Her assumptions were the key variables she was missing?
Good lawd.
First of all - she actually said what she thought was important in her actual post.
Secondly, and again...read the thread more carefully. I gave an example of the big variable she was missing - context.
She has already responded - if my assumptions were wrong - you think she may have said so.
What were the rest of the "quite a few variables"?
Context is actually the over-riding element for most variables. But, if you want to play semantics, then fine.0 -
You said she was missing "quite a few variables," so I thought there might be more than one.
You said she missed quite a few. "Context" is debatable as a variabe, but I'll leave that be.
You say she's missing variables. She asks which ones. You tell her what you assume her assumptions are.
You didn't answer. What variables was she missing?
How do you know what she assumes? If she didn't say it, you cannot make up what she's thinking and then attack her for it. Well, you can, but it's ridiculous.DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »
Such as context.
You are assuming that saturated fats are bad, that high fiber is always good, that more is better and completely ignoring personal circumstances such as activity levels, preference and adherence.
Also, she was asking you what you meant about "missing variables." You didn't answer that.
I did answer, and yes I can based on her actual post.
If she did not, then she can tell me.
Also lol at that being attacking.
Why don't you read the thread more carefully.
Putting aside the fact that those assumptions were made up by you, is that your answer? Her assumptions were the key variables she was missing?
Good lawd.
First of all - she actually said what she thought was important in her actual post.
Secondly, and again...read the thread more carefully. I gave an example of the big variable she was missing - context.
She has already responded - if my assumptions were wrong - you think she may have said so.
What were the rest of the "quite a few variables"?
Context is actually the over-riding element for most variables. But, if you want to play semantics, then fine.
0 -
billieljaime wrote: »I like twinkies too, those have sugar right?
dont these modern twinkies not taste quite as good as the ones i remember from the 70s and 80s or were those just the taste buds of my youth?
are modern twinkies different?
They're better. The cake is moister and there's less cake and more crème filling. Better.
Is the cake part more like a donut or is it more like, well cake? I am curious now.
It's a lovely sponge cake.
Thank you. I have never been tempted as they don't really look appealing to me - I may have to try one...for science of course!0 -
You said she was missing "quite a few variables," so I thought there might be more than one.
You said she missed quite a few. "Context" is debatable as a variabe, but I'll leave that be.
You say she's missing variables. She asks which ones. You tell her what you assume her assumptions are.
You didn't answer. What variables was she missing?
How do you know what she assumes? If she didn't say it, you cannot make up what she's thinking and then attack her for it. Well, you can, but it's ridiculous.DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »
Such as context.
You are assuming that saturated fats are bad, that high fiber is always good, that more is better and completely ignoring personal circumstances such as activity levels, preference and adherence.
Also, she was asking you what you meant about "missing variables." You didn't answer that.
I did answer, and yes I can based on her actual post.
If she did not, then she can tell me.
Also lol at that being attacking.
Why don't you read the thread more carefully.
Putting aside the fact that those assumptions were made up by you, is that your answer? Her assumptions were the key variables she was missing?
Good lawd.
First of all - she actually said what she thought was important in her actual post.
Secondly, and again...read the thread more carefully. I gave an example of the big variable she was missing - context.
She has already responded - if my assumptions were wrong - you think she may have said so.
What were the rest of the "quite a few variables"?
Context is actually the over-riding element for most variables. But, if you want to play semantics, then fine.
I just tried to explain it. Obviously you are not getting the point I made, nor are actually reading my prior responses with a view to dong that. There are, as I indicated quite a few (actually, more than quite a few), but to be perfectly honest, something tells me that you are not sincere in your quest to find out.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions