A Question About Sugar
Options
Replies
-
tigersword wrote: »
Let's start with the obvious, ranking single food items according to arbitrary categories is foolish, as it ignores the entirety of the diet. Suppose you need 200 calories, 9 grams of fat, and 30 grams of carbs to round out your day. Suddenly the Oreos become the best choice out of the options you've presented.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?
Now, I'm not even sure your last part even deserves a response, as it's either 100% trolling, or it shows an absolute lack of intelligence that means you probably can't even read this post. However, I'll go ahead and answer it anyway. Vegetables and Oreos taste different because there are millions of flavor compounds that exist. Different combinations of compounds change the way foods taste. All compounds have flavor, fats taste differently, different proteins taste different, even different sugars have variations in flavor (lactose and fructose don't taste at all alike.)
In other words, trying to say that because vegetables and Oreos taste different, the human body must recognize the different sources of sugar, shows an absolute 100% complete lack of understanding of the concept at all. It's proof that you have no idea what you're talking about. Especially because identifying flavor is something your brain does. It has no effect on your digestive system.
I agree with the opinion that the chart is just ridiculous. She also forgot the deadlift category. If I'm going to get some heavy deadlifts in, I perform better on oreos than on vegetables. Hell spaghetti might even better best of all.
There have been many days I'm ending the day and I'm way behind on my carbs and fat where I turned to 2 or 3 servings of Coco Krispies or 2 slices of pizza or even a pop tart ice cream sandwich. How many bowls of mixed vegetables would I have had to eat? 20? In my experiment vegetables comes in last.
Sir, you just changed my life.
0 -
tigersword wrote: »...........Now, I'm not even sure your last part even deserves a response, as it's either 100% trolling, or it shows an absolute lack of intelligence that means you probably can't even read this post...................
Well tigersword, what you said to Deirdre is such a mean thing to say to someone. Would you say something like that to someone's face? Thinking about it, yes you probably would.
0 -
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.
0 -
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. 0 -
DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »I think you are missing quite a few variables here.
Such as?
Another example. I am a vegetarian who needs fast acting carbs, wants to limit my fiber as I have already got a lot from the rest of my diet, need to get my fats up, and am about to go lift...which is better....hmmmm...the one with the lowest fiber and the highest iron...oh look!! Oreos win!!
Yes, this is a great example of when Oreos would be the optimum choice.
For a body builder.
Who is about to burn the calories off.
This is the argument I see time and time again on MFP:
1. Sugar is the devil! It's addictive and I can't stop eating it! -- average Joe
2. No it isn't! Eat what you want just in moderation! -- body builder who eats 3,000 calories a day and struggles to maintain bulk
3. In fact, limiting sugar will cause you to binge -- vegetarian and / or gluten free person
I was applying some context - unlike you. However, in response to your 'points'
1. Huh?
2. Huh?
3. Huh?
I am not a body builder and I don't eat 3,000 calories and am not on a bulk. I also have never said that limiting sugar will cause you to binge and I am a vegetarian
I have no idea what your point is tbh.
However, this appears to be the fundamental issue, taken from your original post:
"Here are a couple of rankings, put in the order of what I consider best to worst:"
That's all well and good, but please do not assume that what you consider best to worse is even relevant to everyone.0 -
tigersword wrote: »
Let's start with the obvious, ranking single food items according to arbitrary categories is foolish, as it ignores the entirety of the diet. Suppose you need 200 calories, 9 grams of fat, and 30 grams of carbs to round out your day. Suddenly the Oreos become the best choice out of the options you've presented.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?
Now, I'm not even sure your last part even deserves a response, as it's either 100% trolling, or it shows an absolute lack of intelligence that means you probably can't even read this post. However, I'll go ahead and answer it anyway. Vegetables and Oreos taste different because there are millions of flavor compounds that exist. Different combinations of compounds change the way foods taste. All compounds have flavor, fats taste differently, different proteins taste different, even different sugars have variations in flavor (lactose and fructose don't taste at all alike.)
In other words, trying to say that because vegetables and Oreos taste different, the human body must recognize the different sources of sugar, shows an absolute 100% complete lack of understanding of the concept at all. It's proof that you have no idea what you're talking about. Especially because identifying flavor is something your brain does. It has no effect on your digestive system.
I agree with the opinion that the chart is just ridiculous. She also forgot the deadlift category. If I'm going to get some heavy deadlifts in, I perform better on oreos than on vegetables. Hell spaghetti might even better best of all.
There have been many days I'm ending the day and I'm way behind on my carbs and fat where I turned to 2 or 3 servings of Coco Krispies or 2 slices of pizza or even a pop tart ice cream sandwich. How many bowls of mixed vegetables would I have had to eat? 20? In my experiment vegetables comes in last.
ETA: I should have gotten to the last page before responding. So cute that her response was "for body builders". You have 4 or 5 people disagreeing with that ridiculous chart and I'm almost positive that none of us are "bodybuilders". I definitely am not, I'm to short, to skinny, not enough muscle, everything.
ETA #2: I'm sure she also thinks it's young men eating 3000 calories lifting heavy blah blah blah. Just generalizing people. Funny thing is you have one strong woman in this thread, Sara, that isn't a 20 something guy, who can in fact out lift many of us in this thread, me for sure. So someone needs to pay attention before making blanket statements.
ha - sarah can def out lift me..hell she can probably kick my *kitten* too …
and for the record, I am not a bodybuilder….but I do eat oreos, cookies, and ice cream ….0 -
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.0 -
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.
apparently, since deirdre sits around and does nothing we should all eat like her….that is my take away ...-2 -
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 -
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
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 396 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K 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
- 970 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions