A Question About Sugar
Options
Replies
-
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 -
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
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions