A Question About Sugar

Options
13233343638

Replies

  • Kalikel
    Kalikel Posts: 9,626 Member
    Options
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »
    I think you are missing quite a few variables here.

    Such as?


    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.
    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.

    Also, she was asking you what you meant about "missing variables." You didn't answer that.
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    edited January 2015
    Options
    Kalikel wrote: »
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »
    I think you are missing quite a few variables here.

    Such as?


    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.
    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.

    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.

  • Kalikel
    Kalikel Posts: 9,626 Member
    Options
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »
    Kalikel wrote: »
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »
    I think you are missing quite a few variables here.

    Such as?


    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.
    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.

    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.
    You didn't answer. What variables was she missing?
  • dbmata
    dbmata Posts: 12,951 Member
    Options
    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."
    They mostly come at night. Mostly.
  • jenilla1
    jenilla1 Posts: 11,118 Member
    Options
    This thread...it's still here. :(

    Sadly, nobody got me any of these this Christmas...it's heartbreaking. :'(

    sees_zps1923d7dc.jpg
    There's always Valentine's Day. <3
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    Options
    Kalikel wrote: »
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »
    Kalikel wrote: »
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »
    I think you are missing quite a few variables here.

    Such as?


    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.
    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.

    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.
    You didn't answer. What variables was she missing?



    Why don't you read the thread more carefully.
  • DalbozTheLantern
    Options
    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.
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    Options
    jenilla1 wrote: »
    This thread...it's still here. :(

    Sadly, nobody got me any of these this Christmas...it's heartbreaking. :'(

    sees_zps1923d7dc.jpg
    There's always Valentine's Day. <3

    Oooooo...I got a gift card for them....you just reminded me...thank you!
  • Kalikel
    Kalikel Posts: 9,626 Member
    Options
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »
    Kalikel wrote: »
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »
    Kalikel wrote: »
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »
    I think you are missing quite a few variables here.

    Such as?


    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.
    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.

    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.
    You didn't answer. What variables was she missing?



    Why don't you read the thread more carefully.
    You say she's missing variables. She asks which ones. You tell her what you assume her assumptions are.

    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?
  • Aemely
    Aemely Posts: 694 Member
    edited January 2015
    Options
    LeenaGee wrote: »
    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? :o 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

    msj6ecn7x5kn.jpg

  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    Options
    Kalikel wrote: »
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »
    Kalikel wrote: »
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »
    Kalikel wrote: »
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »
    I think you are missing quite a few variables here.

    Such as?


    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.
    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.

    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.
    You didn't answer. What variables was she missing?



    Why don't you read the thread more carefully.
    You say she's missing variables. She asks which ones. You tell her what you assume her assumptions are.

    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.
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    edited January 2015
    Options
    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 :)
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    Options
    newmeadow 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.
  • Aemely
    Aemely Posts: 694 Member
    Options
    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.
  • Kalikel
    Kalikel Posts: 9,626 Member
    Options
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »
    Kalikel wrote: »
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »
    Kalikel wrote: »
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »
    Kalikel wrote: »
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »
    I think you are missing quite a few variables here.

    Such as?


    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.
    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.

    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.
    You didn't answer. What variables was she missing?



    Why don't you read the thread more carefully.
    You say she's missing variables. She asks which ones. You tell her what you assume her assumptions are.

    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.
    You said she missed quite a few. "Context" is debatable as a variabe, but I'll leave that be.

    What were the rest of the "quite a few variables"?

  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    Options
    Kalikel wrote: »
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »
    Kalikel wrote: »
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »
    Kalikel wrote: »
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »
    Kalikel wrote: »
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »
    I think you are missing quite a few variables here.

    Such as?


    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.
    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.

    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.
    You didn't answer. What variables was she missing?



    Why don't you read the thread more carefully.
    You say she's missing variables. She asks which ones. You tell her what you assume her assumptions are.

    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.
    You said she missed quite a few. "Context" is debatable as a variabe, but I'll leave that be.

    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.
  • Kalikel
    Kalikel Posts: 9,626 Member
    Options
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »
    Kalikel wrote: »
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »
    Kalikel wrote: »
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »
    Kalikel wrote: »
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »
    Kalikel wrote: »
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »
    I think you are missing quite a few variables here.

    Such as?


    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.
    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.

    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.
    You didn't answer. What variables was she missing?



    Why don't you read the thread more carefully.
    You say she's missing variables. She asks which ones. You tell her what you assume her assumptions are.

    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.
    You said she missed quite a few. "Context" is debatable as a variabe, but I'll leave that be.

    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.
    You said she was missing "quite a few variables," so I thought there might be more than one.

  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    Options
    newmeadow wrote: »
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »
    newmeadow 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!
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    edited January 2015
    Options
    Kalikel wrote: »
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »
    Kalikel wrote: »
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »
    Kalikel wrote: »
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »
    Kalikel wrote: »
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »
    Kalikel wrote: »
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »
    I think you are missing quite a few variables here.

    Such as?


    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.
    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.

    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.
    You didn't answer. What variables was she missing?



    Why don't you read the thread more carefully.
    You say she's missing variables. She asks which ones. You tell her what you assume her assumptions are.

    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.
    You said she missed quite a few. "Context" is debatable as a variabe, but I'll leave that be.

    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.
    You said she was missing "quite a few variables," so I thought there might be more than one.

    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.

This discussion has been closed.