Anyone else going sugar free in 2015?
Options
Replies
-
sugar really is terrible for you0
-
-
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Not just opinion passed through family, we're talking an entire culture. Here in the U.S., I can look at any health magazine or article that talks about food, and will find foods being described as healthy or healthier than others. I can't imagine the story is much different in many other places in the Western World.brianpperkins wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I do understand SLLRunner's post. I think what I'm seeing is that so much about nutrition that I was brought up on is not being looked at the same way on MFP. It is true that growing up I was taught moderation when it comes to foods, especially sweets. But I'd also always heard that some forms of sugar such as table sugar, HFCS, CS, and other forms of sugar added to some foods are not "healthy". It wasn't that I shouldn't eat any of this at all. But again, moderation. In other words, I was taught that I shouldn't be eating lots of these foods (particularly the ones that also have numerous other added ingredients that are hard to pronounce) because they're "not healthy". I hate to bring it back up again, but as I've indirectly mentioned before, yes I was taught that something like broccoli is "healthy" and a brownie isn't really. Not to the level of sugar being the devil type thing, but you get the picture.ForecasterJason wrote: »
So, are saying it's fine to just eat loads and loads of refined sugar?64138MomToLose wrote: »hebrewhauler wrote: »I believe it is wise to avoid REFINED sugar or too much sugar period. There is a reason why we have a type 2 diabetes epidemic.
um...just NO
Who said loads and loads? What part of moderation don't you seem to understand? Why is it one extreme or the other?
This is an excellent point because the extreme of eating too much in the first place gets people overweight, and then the extreme of good food/bad fad can keep us there. There is way too much demonizing of some foods, especially sugar. When I got rid of the whole extreme mentality, my relationship with myself and food changed. And, yes, I demonized refined sugar (funny I never demonized fruits or foods sweetened with fruit.
)
Now, when I don't eat those cookies or forgo the cake, it's not because they are bad foods, it's simply because I don't want them at that time. There's always another day.
Other times, like when I'm at a party and there are sweets, I eat too much of them, but that is a rare occurrence these days (compared to very often before I changed my perception of food).
Jason, tell us what this member actually meant above^^^^^ Not what she really said which is pretty clear.
Also, I do know correlation does not equal causation here. But I've often thought about the fact that as I got into my teenage years, I can say that my allergies worsened, and my digestive system became more sensitive. There probably were other factors in play, but I can't ignore the fact that I did eat start eating more refined sugar in my early teens as compared to early childhood.
Maybe you guys can understand why it's not so easy for me to quickly understand the alternate way of looking at this type of stuff.
The alternate way of looking at things is based upon fact, not opinion passed through family.
Magazines trying to sell issues ... not present facts. The so-called "health" magazines are all about the latest fad, not what really works. They contradict themselves time after time, and people who are looking for quick fixes either accept the contradiction, or overlook them. Obviously, their half-truths work ... you fall for them.0 -
RunRutheeRun wrote: »RunRutheeRun wrote: »I got flagged for abuse and have no clue which topic or why? Anyone shed any light please??
Don't worry about it. The whole flagging thing is a mess, it doesn't mean anything.
I thought I could get banned from posting?
The flagging system is pathetically used by some members here. I've seen one member followed around the forums and getting flagged for every single thing she posted, none of which was abusive.
she's gone now, and I sincerely hope it wasn't because of her stalker (s)
0 -
Ok, but it's still a lot more than just health magazines. I personally believe the recommendations from the USDA drives a lot of the decisions people in general make when it comes to food choices in this country. Now, I don't agree with everything they recommend when it comes to food choices, but they too speak of choosing "healthier" foods. IMO, if this "opinion" is going to change in this country, I can't see it really changing unless they get on the bandwagon. So until that happens, I see no reason why the whole thinking that some foods are healthier than others won't continue for generations and generations to come.brianpperkins wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Not just opinion passed through family, we're talking an entire culture. Here in the U.S., I can look at any health magazine or article that talks about food, and will find foods being described as healthy or healthier than others. I can't imagine the story is much different in many other places in the Western World.brianpperkins wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I do understand SLLRunner's post. I think what I'm seeing is that so much about nutrition that I was brought up on is not being looked at the same way on MFP. It is true that growing up I was taught moderation when it comes to foods, especially sweets. But I'd also always heard that some forms of sugar such as table sugar, HFCS, CS, and other forms of sugar added to some foods are not "healthy". It wasn't that I shouldn't eat any of this at all. But again, moderation. In other words, I was taught that I shouldn't be eating lots of these foods (particularly the ones that also have numerous other added ingredients that are hard to pronounce) because they're "not healthy". I hate to bring it back up again, but as I've indirectly mentioned before, yes I was taught that something like broccoli is "healthy" and a brownie isn't really. Not to the level of sugar being the devil type thing, but you get the picture.ForecasterJason wrote: »
So, are saying it's fine to just eat loads and loads of refined sugar?64138MomToLose wrote: »hebrewhauler wrote: »I believe it is wise to avoid REFINED sugar or too much sugar period. There is a reason why we have a type 2 diabetes epidemic.
um...just NO
Who said loads and loads? What part of moderation don't you seem to understand? Why is it one extreme or the other?
This is an excellent point because the extreme of eating too much in the first place gets people overweight, and then the extreme of good food/bad fad can keep us there. There is way too much demonizing of some foods, especially sugar. When I got rid of the whole extreme mentality, my relationship with myself and food changed. And, yes, I demonized refined sugar (funny I never demonized fruits or foods sweetened with fruit. )
Now, when I don't eat those cookies or forgo the cake, it's not because they are bad foods, it's simply because I don't want them at that time. There's always another day.
Other times, like when I'm at a party and there are sweets, I eat too much of them, but that is a rare occurrence these days (compared to very often before I changed my perception of food).
Jason, tell us what this member actually meant above^^^^^ Not what she really said which is pretty clear.
Also, I do know correlation does not equal causation here. But I've often thought about the fact that as I got into my teenage years, I can say that my allergies worsened, and my digestive system became more sensitive. There probably were other factors in play, but I can't ignore the fact that I did eat start eating more refined sugar in my early teens as compared to early childhood.
Maybe you guys can understand why it's not so easy for me to quickly understand the alternate way of looking at this type of stuff.
The alternate way of looking at things is based upon fact, not opinion passed through family.
Magazines trying to sell issues ... not present facts. The so-called "health" magazines are all about the latest fad, not what really works. They contradict themselves time after time, and people who are looking for quick fixes either accept the contradiction, or overlook them. Obviously, their half-truths work ... you fall for them.
0 -
Reading this thread whilst enjoying a scoop of hagen daaz midnight cookies and cream with mocha cookie wafers.
Totally with you, OP. Haters gonna hate.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Ok, but it's still a lot more than just health magazines. I personally believe the recommendations from the USDA drives a lot of the decisions people in general make when it comes to food choices in this country. Now, I don't agree with everything they recommend when it comes to food choices, but they too speak of choosing "healthier" foods. IMO, if this "opinion" is going to change in this country, I can't see it really changing unless they get on the bandwagon. So until that happens, I see no reason why the whole thinking that some foods are healthier than others won't continue for generations and generations to come.brianpperkins wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Not just opinion passed through family, we're talking an entire culture. Here in the U.S., I can look at any health magazine or article that talks about food, and will find foods being described as healthy or healthier than others. I can't imagine the story is much different in many other places in the Western World.brianpperkins wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I do understand SLLRunner's post. I think what I'm seeing is that so much about nutrition that I was brought up on is not being looked at the same way on MFP. It is true that growing up I was taught moderation when it comes to foods, especially sweets. But I'd also always heard that some forms of sugar such as table sugar, HFCS, CS, and other forms of sugar added to some foods are not "healthy". It wasn't that I shouldn't eat any of this at all. But again, moderation. In other words, I was taught that I shouldn't be eating lots of these foods (particularly the ones that also have numerous other added ingredients that are hard to pronounce) because they're "not healthy". I hate to bring it back up again, but as I've indirectly mentioned before, yes I was taught that something like broccoli is "healthy" and a brownie isn't really. Not to the level of sugar being the devil type thing, but you get the picture.ForecasterJason wrote: »
So, are saying it's fine to just eat loads and loads of refined sugar?64138MomToLose wrote: »hebrewhauler wrote: »I believe it is wise to avoid REFINED sugar or too much sugar period. There is a reason why we have a type 2 diabetes epidemic.
um...just NO
Who said loads and loads? What part of moderation don't you seem to understand? Why is it one extreme or the other?
This is an excellent point because the extreme of eating too much in the first place gets people overweight, and then the extreme of good food/bad fad can keep us there. There is way too much demonizing of some foods, especially sugar. When I got rid of the whole extreme mentality, my relationship with myself and food changed. And, yes, I demonized refined sugar (funny I never demonized fruits or foods sweetened with fruit. )
Now, when I don't eat those cookies or forgo the cake, it's not because they are bad foods, it's simply because I don't want them at that time. There's always another day.
Other times, like when I'm at a party and there are sweets, I eat too much of them, but that is a rare occurrence these days (compared to very often before I changed my perception of food).
Jason, tell us what this member actually meant above^^^^^ Not what she really said which is pretty clear.
Also, I do know correlation does not equal causation here. But I've often thought about the fact that as I got into my teenage years, I can say that my allergies worsened, and my digestive system became more sensitive. There probably were other factors in play, but I can't ignore the fact that I did eat start eating more refined sugar in my early teens as compared to early childhood.
Maybe you guys can understand why it's not so easy for me to quickly understand the alternate way of looking at this type of stuff.
The alternate way of looking at things is based upon fact, not opinion passed through family.
Magazines trying to sell issues ... not present facts. The so-called "health" magazines are all about the latest fad, not what really works. They contradict themselves time after time, and people who are looking for quick fixes either accept the contradiction, or overlook them. Obviously, their half-truths work ... you fall for them.
If people listened to the USDA, why is there an obesity epidemic? You can't claim people are following USDA recommendations when, if that were the case, the obesity rate would not be where it is.
Honestly, I don't take anything you say seriously based on your history of confusing opinion with research, resorting to reductio ad abusrdum, and ever changing logic when your latest tactic is challenged with scientific fact.-2 -
I don't think I could do it. Really I don't. The best I can manage is to go without refined sugar in chocolate, cakes etc, and even that would be tough for a whole year.
I eat only natural sugars, such as those in fruit. That's challenge enough for me!0 -
I give anyone who can eliminate sugar from their diet major kuddo's. I love sweets, adore them, cannot live without them. Sound desperate? Well, I guess it may seem so. I would literally give up all my calorie's just as long as I can have something sweet. It's pathetic I know. So, give them up-No can do. But, I would like to control the urges and get some healthy foods in there. Perhaps learn the balancing act to form a more modified diet as opposed to depriving myself of something I love.0
-
Oh yes, let's all feel bad for Topaz, because she was so innocent.christinev297 wrote: »RunRutheeRun wrote: »RunRutheeRun wrote: »I got flagged for abuse and have no clue which topic or why? Anyone shed any light please??
Don't worry about it. The whole flagging thing is a mess, it doesn't mean anything.
I thought I could get banned from posting?
The flagging system is pathetically used by some members here. I've seen one member followed around the forums and getting flagged for every single thing she posted, none of which was abusive.
she's gone now, and I sincerely hope it wasn't because of her stalker (s)
Look ^^^^ A flag. Thanks Christine.
When you get 10,000 you can trade them in at the MFP shop for a crown and scepter.0 -
Nope, tried to switch to sweetener in my tea and hated it, tried several brands and types too and my taste buds just aren't having it lol. I also really like cake, chocolate, caramel macchiatos, sweet popcorn and fruit too much lol.0
-
Sorry, I didn't fully explain myself. What I really meant was, I think a lot of people who value their health look to the USDA as to what's "healthy". You are right that most obese individuals are most likely not following the USDA's recommendations. But public schools (at least in my area) do try to follow MyPlate. The government doesn't have all the answers when it comes to what's best. This is a quote from their 2010 guidelines. "To limit excess calories and maintain healthy weight, individuals are encouraged to drink water and other beverages with few or no calories, in addition to recommended amounts of low-fat or fat-free milk and 100% fruit juices." Whereas, on this forum, that method of getting into a calorie deficit is not what's widely promoted. Instead, it's about moderation.brianpperkins wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Ok, but it's still a lot more than just health magazines. I personally believe the recommendations from the USDA drives a lot of the decisions people in general make when it comes to food choices in this country. Now, I don't agree with everything they recommend when it comes to food choices, but they too speak of choosing "healthier" foods. IMO, if this "opinion" is going to change in this country, I can't see it really changing unless they get on the bandwagon. So until that happens, I see no reason why the whole thinking that some foods are healthier than others won't continue for generations and generations to come.brianpperkins wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Not just opinion passed through family, we're talking an entire culture. Here in the U.S., I can look at any health magazine or article that talks about food, and will find foods being described as healthy or healthier than others. I can't imagine the story is much different in many other places in the Western World.brianpperkins wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I do understand SLLRunner's post. I think what I'm seeing is that so much about nutrition that I was brought up on is not being looked at the same way on MFP. It is true that growing up I was taught moderation when it comes to foods, especially sweets. But I'd also always heard that some forms of sugar such as table sugar, HFCS, CS, and other forms of sugar added to some foods are not "healthy". It wasn't that I shouldn't eat any of this at all. But again, moderation. In other words, I was taught that I shouldn't be eating lots of these foods (particularly the ones that also have numerous other added ingredients that are hard to pronounce) because they're "not healthy". I hate to bring it back up again, but as I've indirectly mentioned before, yes I was taught that something like broccoli is "healthy" and a brownie isn't really. Not to the level of sugar being the devil type thing, but you get the picture.ForecasterJason wrote: »
So, are saying it's fine to just eat loads and loads of refined sugar?64138MomToLose wrote: »hebrewhauler wrote: »I believe it is wise to avoid REFINED sugar or too much sugar period. There is a reason why we have a type 2 diabetes epidemic.
um...just NO
Who said loads and loads? What part of moderation don't you seem to understand? Why is it one extreme or the other?
This is an excellent point because the extreme of eating too much in the first place gets people overweight, and then the extreme of good food/bad fad can keep us there. There is way too much demonizing of some foods, especially sugar. When I got rid of the whole extreme mentality, my relationship with myself and food changed. And, yes, I demonized refined sugar (funny I never demonized fruits or foods sweetened with fruit. )
Now, when I don't eat those cookies or forgo the cake, it's not because they are bad foods, it's simply because I don't want them at that time. There's always another day.
Other times, like when I'm at a party and there are sweets, I eat too much of them, but that is a rare occurrence these days (compared to very often before I changed my perception of food).
Jason, tell us what this member actually meant above^^^^^ Not what she really said which is pretty clear.
Also, I do know correlation does not equal causation here. But I've often thought about the fact that as I got into my teenage years, I can say that my allergies worsened, and my digestive system became more sensitive. There probably were other factors in play, but I can't ignore the fact that I did eat start eating more refined sugar in my early teens as compared to early childhood.
Maybe you guys can understand why it's not so easy for me to quickly understand the alternate way of looking at this type of stuff.
The alternate way of looking at things is based upon fact, not opinion passed through family.
Magazines trying to sell issues ... not present facts. The so-called "health" magazines are all about the latest fad, not what really works. They contradict themselves time after time, and people who are looking for quick fixes either accept the contradiction, or overlook them. Obviously, their half-truths work ... you fall for them.
If people listened to the USDA, why is there an obesity epidemic? You can't claim people are following USDA recommendations when, if that were the case, the obesity rate would not be where it is.
Honestly, I don't take anything you say seriously based on your history of confusing opinion with research, resorting to reductio ad abusrdum, and ever changing logic when your latest tactic is challenged with scientific fact.
0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Sorry, I didn't fully explain myself. What I really meant was, I think a lot of people who value their health look to the USDA as to what's "healthy". You are right that most obese individuals are most likely not following the USDA's recommendations. But public schools (at least in my area) do try to follow MyPlate. The government doesn't have all the answers when it comes to what's best. This is a quote from their 2010 guidelines. "To limit excess calories and maintain healthy weight, individuals are encouraged to drink water and other beverages with few or no calories, in addition to recommended amounts of low-fat or fat-free milk and 100% fruit juices." Whereas, on this forum, that method of getting into a calorie deficit is not what's widely promoted. Instead, it's about moderation.brianpperkins wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Ok, but it's still a lot more than just health magazines. I personally believe the recommendations from the USDA drives a lot of the decisions people in general make when it comes to food choices in this country. Now, I don't agree with everything they recommend when it comes to food choices, but they too speak of choosing "healthier" foods. IMO, if this "opinion" is going to change in this country, I can't see it really changing unless they get on the bandwagon. So until that happens, I see no reason why the whole thinking that some foods are healthier than others won't continue for generations and generations to come.brianpperkins wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Not just opinion passed through family, we're talking an entire culture. Here in the U.S., I can look at any health magazine or article that talks about food, and will find foods being described as healthy or healthier than others. I can't imagine the story is much different in many other places in the Western World.brianpperkins wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I do understand SLLRunner's post. I think what I'm seeing is that so much about nutrition that I was brought up on is not being looked at the same way on MFP. It is true that growing up I was taught moderation when it comes to foods, especially sweets. But I'd also always heard that some forms of sugar such as table sugar, HFCS, CS, and other forms of sugar added to some foods are not "healthy". It wasn't that I shouldn't eat any of this at all. But again, moderation. In other words, I was taught that I shouldn't be eating lots of these foods (particularly the ones that also have numerous other added ingredients that are hard to pronounce) because they're "not healthy". I hate to bring it back up again, but as I've indirectly mentioned before, yes I was taught that something like broccoli is "healthy" and a brownie isn't really. Not to the level of sugar being the devil type thing, but you get the picture.ForecasterJason wrote: »
So, are saying it's fine to just eat loads and loads of refined sugar?64138MomToLose wrote: »hebrewhauler wrote: »I believe it is wise to avoid REFINED sugar or too much sugar period. There is a reason why we have a type 2 diabetes epidemic.
um...just NO
Who said loads and loads? What part of moderation don't you seem to understand? Why is it one extreme or the other?
This is an excellent point because the extreme of eating too much in the first place gets people overweight, and then the extreme of good food/bad fad can keep us there. There is way too much demonizing of some foods, especially sugar. When I got rid of the whole extreme mentality, my relationship with myself and food changed. And, yes, I demonized refined sugar (funny I never demonized fruits or foods sweetened with fruit. )
Now, when I don't eat those cookies or forgo the cake, it's not because they are bad foods, it's simply because I don't want them at that time. There's always another day.
Other times, like when I'm at a party and there are sweets, I eat too much of them, but that is a rare occurrence these days (compared to very often before I changed my perception of food).
Jason, tell us what this member actually meant above^^^^^ Not what she really said which is pretty clear.
Also, I do know correlation does not equal causation here. But I've often thought about the fact that as I got into my teenage years, I can say that my allergies worsened, and my digestive system became more sensitive. There probably were other factors in play, but I can't ignore the fact that I did eat start eating more refined sugar in my early teens as compared to early childhood.
Maybe you guys can understand why it's not so easy for me to quickly understand the alternate way of looking at this type of stuff.
The alternate way of looking at things is based upon fact, not opinion passed through family.
Magazines trying to sell issues ... not present facts. The so-called "health" magazines are all about the latest fad, not what really works. They contradict themselves time after time, and people who are looking for quick fixes either accept the contradiction, or overlook them. Obviously, their half-truths work ... you fall for them.
If people listened to the USDA, why is there an obesity epidemic? You can't claim people are following USDA recommendations when, if that were the case, the obesity rate would not be where it is.
Honestly, I don't take anything you say seriously based on your history of confusing opinion with research, resorting to reductio ad abusrdum, and ever changing logic when your latest tactic is challenged with scientific fact.
Maybe I'm missing it but what about drinking water, low fat milk, and fruit juice contradicts moderation?0 -
Another change from you when the validity of your prior posts is challenged based on fact and logic.ForecasterJason wrote: »
Sorry, I didn't fully explain myself. What I really meant was, I think a lot of people who value their health look to the USDA as to what's "healthy". You are right that most obese individuals are most likely not following the USDA's recommendations. But public schools (at least in my area) do try to follow MyPlate. The government doesn't have all the answers when it comes to what's best. This is a quote from their 2010 guidelines. "To limit excess calories and maintain healthy weight, individuals are encouraged to drink water and other beverages with few or no calories, in addition to recommended amounts of low-fat or fat-free milk and 100% fruit juices." Whereas, on this forum, that method of getting into a calorie deficit is not what's widely promoted. Instead, it's about moderation.brianpperkins wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Ok, but it's still a lot more than just health magazines. I personally believe the recommendations from the USDA drives a lot of the decisions people in general make when it comes to food choices in this country. Now, I don't agree with everything they recommend when it comes to food choices, but they too speak of choosing "healthier" foods. IMO, if this "opinion" is going to change in this country, I can't see it really changing unless they get on the bandwagon. So until that happens, I see no reason why the whole thinking that some foods are healthier than others won't continue for generations and generations to come.brianpperkins wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Not just opinion passed through family, we're talking an entire culture. Here in the U.S., I can look at any health magazine or article that talks about food, and will find foods being described as healthy or healthier than others. I can't imagine the story is much different in many other places in the Western World.brianpperkins wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I do understand SLLRunner's post. I think what I'm seeing is that so much about nutrition that I was brought up on is not being looked at the same way on MFP. It is true that growing up I was taught moderation when it comes to foods, especially sweets. But I'd also always heard that some forms of sugar such as table sugar, HFCS, CS, and other forms of sugar added to some foods are not "healthy". It wasn't that I shouldn't eat any of this at all. But again, moderation. In other words, I was taught that I shouldn't be eating lots of these foods (particularly the ones that also have numerous other added ingredients that are hard to pronounce) because they're "not healthy". I hate to bring it back up again, but as I've indirectly mentioned before, yes I was taught that something like broccoli is "healthy" and a brownie isn't really. Not to the level of sugar being the devil type thing, but you get the picture.ForecasterJason wrote: »
So, are saying it's fine to just eat loads and loads of refined sugar?64138MomToLose wrote: »hebrewhauler wrote: »I believe it is wise to avoid REFINED sugar or too much sugar period. There is a reason why we have a type 2 diabetes epidemic.
um...just NO
Who said loads and loads? What part of moderation don't you seem to understand? Why is it one extreme or the other?
This is an excellent point because the extreme of eating too much in the first place gets people overweight, and then the extreme of good food/bad fad can keep us there. There is way too much demonizing of some foods, especially sugar. When I got rid of the whole extreme mentality, my relationship with myself and food changed. And, yes, I demonized refined sugar (funny I never demonized fruits or foods sweetened with fruit. )
Now, when I don't eat those cookies or forgo the cake, it's not because they are bad foods, it's simply because I don't want them at that time. There's always another day.
Other times, like when I'm at a party and there are sweets, I eat too much of them, but that is a rare occurrence these days (compared to very often before I changed my perception of food).
Jason, tell us what this member actually meant above^^^^^ Not what she really said which is pretty clear.
Also, I do know correlation does not equal causation here. But I've often thought about the fact that as I got into my teenage years, I can say that my allergies worsened, and my digestive system became more sensitive. There probably were other factors in play, but I can't ignore the fact that I did eat start eating more refined sugar in my early teens as compared to early childhood.
Maybe you guys can understand why it's not so easy for me to quickly understand the alternate way of looking at this type of stuff.
The alternate way of looking at things is based upon fact, not opinion passed through family.
Magazines trying to sell issues ... not present facts. The so-called "health" magazines are all about the latest fad, not what really works. They contradict themselves time after time, and people who are looking for quick fixes either accept the contradiction, or overlook them. Obviously, their half-truths work ... you fall for them.
If people listened to the USDA, why is there an obesity epidemic? You can't claim people are following USDA recommendations when, if that were the case, the obesity rate would not be where it is.
Honestly, I don't take anything you say seriously based on your history of confusing opinion with research, resorting to reductio ad abusrdum, and ever changing logic when your latest tactic is challenged with scientific fact.
Nothing in that guidance is against moderation. Calorie free liquids help provide a full feeling to help "limit excess calories" ... Comprehension is important.
A wise man stops digging when they realize they're in a hole from which they cannot escape, you keep shoveling.
-2 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Sorry, I didn't fully explain myself. What I really meant was, I think a lot of people who value their health look to the USDA as to what's "healthy". You are right that most obese individuals are most likely not following the USDA's recommendations. But public schools (at least in my area) do try to follow MyPlate. The government doesn't have all the answers when it comes to what's best. This is a quote from their 2010 guidelines. "To limit excess calories and maintain healthy weight, individuals are encouraged to drink water and other beverages with few or no calories, in addition to recommended amounts of low-fat or fat-free milk and 100% fruit juices." Whereas, on this forum, that method of getting into a calorie deficit is not what's widely promoted. Instead, it's about moderation.brianpperkins wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Ok, but it's still a lot more than just health magazines. I personally believe the recommendations from the USDA drives a lot of the decisions people in general make when it comes to food choices in this country. Now, I don't agree with everything they recommend when it comes to food choices, but they too speak of choosing "healthier" foods. IMO, if this "opinion" is going to change in this country, I can't see it really changing unless they get on the bandwagon. So until that happens, I see no reason why the whole thinking that some foods are healthier than others won't continue for generations and generations to come.brianpperkins wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Not just opinion passed through family, we're talking an entire culture. Here in the U.S., I can look at any health magazine or article that talks about food, and will find foods being described as healthy or healthier than others. I can't imagine the story is much different in many other places in the Western World.brianpperkins wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I do understand SLLRunner's post. I think what I'm seeing is that so much about nutrition that I was brought up on is not being looked at the same way on MFP. It is true that growing up I was taught moderation when it comes to foods, especially sweets. But I'd also always heard that some forms of sugar such as table sugar, HFCS, CS, and other forms of sugar added to some foods are not "healthy". It wasn't that I shouldn't eat any of this at all. But again, moderation. In other words, I was taught that I shouldn't be eating lots of these foods (particularly the ones that also have numerous other added ingredients that are hard to pronounce) because they're "not healthy". I hate to bring it back up again, but as I've indirectly mentioned before, yes I was taught that something like broccoli is "healthy" and a brownie isn't really. Not to the level of sugar being the devil type thing, but you get the picture.ForecasterJason wrote: »
So, are saying it's fine to just eat loads and loads of refined sugar?64138MomToLose wrote: »hebrewhauler wrote: »I believe it is wise to avoid REFINED sugar or too much sugar period. There is a reason why we have a type 2 diabetes epidemic.
um...just NO
Who said loads and loads? What part of moderation don't you seem to understand? Why is it one extreme or the other?
This is an excellent point because the extreme of eating too much in the first place gets people overweight, and then the extreme of good food/bad fad can keep us there. There is way too much demonizing of some foods, especially sugar. When I got rid of the whole extreme mentality, my relationship with myself and food changed. And, yes, I demonized refined sugar (funny I never demonized fruits or foods sweetened with fruit. )
Now, when I don't eat those cookies or forgo the cake, it's not because they are bad foods, it's simply because I don't want them at that time. There's always another day.
Other times, like when I'm at a party and there are sweets, I eat too much of them, but that is a rare occurrence these days (compared to very often before I changed my perception of food).
Jason, tell us what this member actually meant above^^^^^ Not what she really said which is pretty clear.
Also, I do know correlation does not equal causation here. But I've often thought about the fact that as I got into my teenage years, I can say that my allergies worsened, and my digestive system became more sensitive. There probably were other factors in play, but I can't ignore the fact that I did eat start eating more refined sugar in my early teens as compared to early childhood.
Maybe you guys can understand why it's not so easy for me to quickly understand the alternate way of looking at this type of stuff.
The alternate way of looking at things is based upon fact, not opinion passed through family.
Magazines trying to sell issues ... not present facts. The so-called "health" magazines are all about the latest fad, not what really works. They contradict themselves time after time, and people who are looking for quick fixes either accept the contradiction, or overlook them. Obviously, their half-truths work ... you fall for them.
If people listened to the USDA, why is there an obesity epidemic? You can't claim people are following USDA recommendations when, if that were the case, the obesity rate would not be where it is.
Honestly, I don't take anything you say seriously based on your history of confusing opinion with research, resorting to reductio ad abusrdum, and ever changing logic when your latest tactic is challenged with scientific fact.
What forums are you reading? 99% of people here promote a caloric deficit for weight loss. And moderation for long-term success.0 -
This may be splitting hairs, but I see a difference between "reduce or replace" that the USDA says versus eating smaller quantities of whatever. Meaning, the USDA says one should limit or remove higher calorie foods, whereas on here it's limit overall calorie consumption, not necessarily fromhigher calorie foods.
Either way, this is well beyond the initial point I was trying to make. In this country, people are simply not conditioned to think that there is no such thing as healthy or unhealthy food.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 400 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
- 991 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions