*RANT* Sugar, sugar, sugar!
Replies
-
But is a big foot a big foot, or is it a yeti sometimes?0
-
-
Are you sure this is not typo? Because I thought we were talking about "natural". Where did this reference to processing come from?
either I'm in a deeply confused coffee state- or the fact that typicaly definition of 'natural' excludes processing... and ultimately neither of those things determine if it's good or not for you.
I mean hell whey is pretty processed- but I'd say protein powder is definitely not an "unnatural" substance-it's dehydrated whey and it's considered a widely accepted "health" addition.
so I guess my point is a "natural" label =/= healthy or unhealthy much like and a "processed' label =/= healthy- or unhealthy.0 -
Removal from "natural" state is a "man" alteration to said component.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
so you're only eating RAW wild forage? Granted, removing something from a stream, or off a bush is making it a man altered component...Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
my first question would be, what is unnatural food?
It would have to be solely made from organic compounds not found in nature. For the life of me, I can't think of one, even though I'm sure tofurkey might be close.
Why would food have to be solely made from organic compounds not found in nature to be unnatural? Seems like any type synthetic, artifical or man-altered component would make it unnatural.
Come now.
?? I don't see how what I eat has anything to do with this. But then I don't see how picking something up alters it either. I'm confused.
Most if not all items in the supermarket are man altered, be it no longer living, processed for purchase, and heavily modified due to husbandry.
Seriously, any type of "synthetic", artificial, or man alteration turns something unnatural? That means, hands down, EVERY SINGLE ITEM in our food system is unnatural by your black and white, and fairly unreasonable definition.
Then you mention synthetics... ok, I use sodium nitrate to preserve meat. Does that make the meat unnatural?
I can do the same thing, but with a greater chance of failure by using saltpeter or spinach. Would that make it "natural"?
Then we have the application of "unnatural" sources of heat, like my stove, and my oven. Now the food is no longer natural... It just doesn't work.
0 -
Why should we? Is this suddenly a diabetic forum? If someone is ranting about sugar, why does it give only diabetics the right to chime in?
What about the people that don't have diabetes? Because it seems like every time a sugar conversation comes up we hear "In diabetics and insulin resistant" but what about the non?
Non Diabetic people stay out of Sugar Rant thread. Simple.
Life is not complicated. One can make it complicated and stressful by all means but actually it's not
Simple Definition of Life =
If that's the logic then should all diabetics stay out of non diabetic disorder threads?
Like I said to avoid unnecessary headaches. I would not bother going in a "I want to be gluten free because gluten is bad! Rant Rant Rant" forum. But again that's just me.
You do know that this is NOT an "I want to be sugar free, rant! rant!" thread," right? I mean, read OP's initial post and early comments.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Lezavargas wrote: »I dont concern myself too much when its naturally occuring sugar, i'd just track your refined and stay under in your calories, just my opinion though
hmmm so one form of sugar is better than another???
care to expound on that...?
Well, like the WHO said, the issue isn't really sugar itself, whatever kind. It's the likelihood that people are eating lots of calories that contribute nothing but energy when their lifestyle is such that they don't need more energy (in other words, they aren't very active). Thus, for the average person, one way to prevent getting fat and make sure that you get adequate nutrients is to limit (not eliminate) high calorie foods that contain few nutrients. Often, though of course not always, food items with added sugar are such items, so that's something worth watching.
I'd add that if you have other ways to monitor your calories and ensure that you are getting an overall healthy balanced diet, then don't worry about it. It's just one possible rule of thumb that might help people do that.
so it is not the form/type of sugar..it is the calories one is ingesting?
Yep, calories and nutrients.
So if you are logging (or otherwise staying at/moving toward an appropriate weight) and getting sufficient nutrients, wouldn't worry about it.0 -
-
-
Removal from "natural" state is a "man" alteration to said component.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
so you're only eating RAW wild forage? Granted, removing something from a stream, or off a bush is making it a man altered component...Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
my first question would be, what is unnatural food?
It would have to be solely made from organic compounds not found in nature. For the life of me, I can't think of one, even though I'm sure tofurkey might be close.
Why would food have to be solely made from organic compounds not found in nature to be unnatural? Seems like any type synthetic, artifical or man-altered component would make it unnatural.
Come now.
?? I don't see how what I eat has anything to do with this. But then I don't see how picking something up alters it either. I'm confused.
Most if not all items in the supermarket are man altered, be it no longer living, processed for purchase, and heavily modified due to husbandry.
Seriously, any type of "synthetic", artificial, or man alteration turns something unnatural? That means, hands down, EVERY SINGLE ITEM in our food system is unnatural by your black and white, and fairly unreasonable definition.
Then you mention synthetics... ok, I use sodium nitrate to preserve meat. Does that make the meat unnatural?
I can do the same thing, but with a greater chance of failure by using saltpeter or spinach. Would that make it "natural"?
Then we have the application of "unnatural" sources of heat, like my stove, and my oven. Now the food is no longer natural... It just doesn't work.
Geez dude, calm down. First of all, it's the dictionary's definition, not mine.
And yes, by definition, adding sodium nitrate to meat would make it unnatural. Depending on how strictly you want to apply the definition even planting and growing food could be unnatural. Personally, I think that's a little too strict, though I can certainly see the point.
But if an apple falls from a tree and I pick it up and eat it, I don't see how that made it unnatural. Likewise, if I catch a fish I don't see how that makes the fish unnatural, though I can see an argument for it being unnatural to cook it. As I said in another post above, it seems to me that in that case, the ingredient (fish) would be natural, but not the end result.
ETA: By definition something cannot be synthetic and natural.0 -
You use synthetic as a replacement for isolate or purification.
There are very few ACTUAL synthetics in the food system. Seriously, I think learning some about the food system would help you, a lot. I think Coursera still has some good stuff.
Fallen apple - eh, apples generally fall when they're right around time for a rot session, so have at it. It fits, barely, your definition of natural food. The fish, it requires man-alteration to remove it from the river, kill it, and then prep it to eat.
That's all processing right there. As would cleaning said apple after you freegan'ed it off the ground.
Adding sodium nitrate to meat is not unnatural, it's a purified compound present in normal food, and used simply to make food safe in preservation. One could argue that it's altering it from its base state, but anyone trying to tell you it's unnatural is basically spitting in your face and telling you its raining.0 -
mmmm...I don't remember. probably. I was all over usenet but ate ALL THE FOOD, ALL THE TIME at that point.
0 -
herrspoons wrote: »I wonder if people had 20 page arguments about fat being the devil back in the old Usenet days?
I'd actually guess not, as by the time Usenet came around, the low-fat dietary recommendation was pretty much being taken as gospel (the setup being Ancel Keyes' work from decades prior).
The "go ahead and eat fat" is actually a relatively new phenomenon, at least as a mainstream ideal.0 -
Dr oz0
-
alt.food.*kitten*.dropbear.cptkangaroo.asiacarreraherrspoons wrote: »I wonder if people had 20 page arguments about fat being the devil back in the old Usenet days?
It was real.
0 -
I was really waiting for Charlton Heston to start screaming in the background lol. Even if that is a real product it is really scary -- people hacking the product formula? Oh sure, what can go wrong there.0 -
It's a real product.
They raised $20mil.
Twenty Mil.0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »Yeah my bad - I must have dreamed it!
Maybe Lustig visited you in your sleep, or you read http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/4/895.full0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Also, I have no idea how commercial molasses is made.
It's "made" of all the stuff that isn't sugar and leaves the sugar production process as molasses, with the other output being crystallised sugar.
0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »Yeah my bad - I must have dreamed it!
Maybe Lustig visited you in your sleep, or you read http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/4/895.full
Yep that might be it
That and maybe a few other studies.
Glad to know I didn't dream it - but does that mean there really is a monster in my closet?
0 -
herrspoons wrote: »I wonder if people had 20 page arguments about fat being the devil back in the old Usenet days?
Before science understood how nutrition really affected our bodies I'm sure they did.
In fact even now people think that saturated fat is bad for cholesterol!
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
tennisdude2004 wrote: »Lezavargas wrote: »I dont concern myself too much when its naturally occuring sugar, i'd just track your refined and stay under in your calories, just my opinion though
hmmm so one form of sugar is better than another???
care to expound on that...?
Excessive fructose can be more damaging to the liver (the liver fatty acids) than excessive glucose!
edit: -
In fact scrap that, as all sugar is processed and metabolized by the body identically the statement above must be impossible - my bad!
Please define how much is technically excessive.
I can't - it's different for everyone.
I should think a lot of people in western society (not dieting) and eating in a surplus are eating excessive amounts.
But that's just an observation based on the levels of obesity in countries such as the UK and USA and the increase in diabetes and other such illnesses.
Still the point is the body does not always metabolize glucose and fructose the same - so the body can distinguish the difference.
0 -
I have also been pre-diabetic and have PCOS so I do "try" to eat less sugar, but it isn't my main concern when losing weight because the sugar I do consume is mostly natural, so I figure shouldn't be as bad as let's say, a bag of M&M's...
I normally don't do shakes in the morning, and I do use different foods when available, it just caught my eye this morning when it lit up in red lol
Fellow pre-diabetic here... Please be aware that the effects of sugar on the body are the same whether the sugar comes from fruit or candy. Of course you get nutrition with fruit which is better, but the body does not know the difference as far as the blood sugar impact. Even artificial sweeteners that have no sugar can affect blood sugar stability.
That said, I track carbs and not sugar... I keep carbs to 30 max per meal and 90 total per day. Several nutritionists have told me that since the sugar is contained within the carb number, there is no need to track sugar separately. But at the levels I strive for, my sugar never goes into the red ...0 -
-
tennisdude2004 wrote: »Yeah my bad - I must have dreamed it!
Maybe Lustig visited you in your sleep, or you read http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/4/895.full
The issues with fructose are found in rats not humans because rat livers metabolize fructose substantially different than humans most notably that rats convert fructose to 50% fat while humans only about 1% so fatty liver is going to be more of an issue for rats than humans. Here is more evidence that glucose and fructose do not differ in humans as far as health concerns.
sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140131083531.htm Note that it's over consumption of all sugars and not just one that they author believes to be the issue.
ETA so the debate goes on but if you have a well balanced diet with plenty of food sources and exercise regularly you shouldn't have to worry.0 -
So according to MFP, I should only take in 27g of sugar a day. For breakfast I had a banana shake (1 cup of 2% milk, 1 banana) that put me at 28g....how am I supposed to NOT consume any more sugar when it is only 9am????
Yes, I know I should worry more about eating my calories and not under eating...and that is what I do, but it just made me realize how...unrealistic?...some things can be. Fruit has so much sugar in it yet we are supposed to base our 'healthy diets' on fruits and vegetables.
I do not base my eating on the grams of sugar I consume, but when it is only 9am and it is starring at me in bright red letters, it catches my eye.
I am eating my calories as I should, I try to eat them all and not go over, which this time around doesn't seem as hard...been losing slowly but surely and I feel good.
Ok, all done!
Anyone else feel the same way?
Happy eating!
I would only really bother tracking sugar if it was something I was having issues with in RE to vast overconsumption...I wouldn't get my panties in a bunch because of a banana. If you're not eating a cake and washing it down with a 40 ounce big gulp and you don't have any medical conditions like pre-diabetes or diabetes or any other metabolic issues, I wouldn't really concern myself here.0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »Yeah my bad - I must have dreamed it!
Maybe Lustig visited you in your sleep, or you read http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/4/895.full
The issues with fructose are found in rats not humans because rat livers metabolize fructose substantially different than humans most notably that rats convert fructose to 50% fat while humans only about 1% so fatty liver is going to be more of an issue for rats than humans. Here is more evidence that glucose and fructose do not differ in humans as far as health concerns.
sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140131083531.htm Note that it's over consumption of all sugars and not just one that they author believes to be the issue.
ETA so the debate goes on but if you have a well balanced diet with plenty of food sources and exercise regularly you shouldn't have to worry.
There are plenty of studies and observation carried out on humans that they metabolize fructose and glucose differently (that's no to say it's a bad thing - only that the body does differentiate).
Also in a Utopian world everyone would eat a balanced diet and get plenty of exercise, but a lot of people in westernized culture don't and they do over eat!
Also - I agree the over consumption of all sugar is a problem - I'm not isolating fructose.0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »Yeah my bad - I must have dreamed it!
Maybe Lustig visited you in your sleep, or you read http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/4/895.full
The issues with fructose are found in rats not humans because rat livers metabolize fructose substantially different than humans most notably that rats convert fructose to 50% fat while humans only about 1% so fatty liver is going to be more of an issue for rats than humans. Here is more evidence that glucose and fructose do not differ in humans as far as health concerns.
sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140131083531.htm Note that it's over consumption of all sugars and not just one that they author believes to be the issue.
ETA so the debate goes on but if you have a well balanced diet with plenty of food sources and exercise regularly you shouldn't have to worry.
There are plenty of studies and observation carried out on humans that they metabolize fructose and glucose differently (that's no to say it's a bad thing - only that the body does differentiate).
Also in a Utopian world everyone would eat a balanced diet and get plenty of exercise, but a lot of people in westernized culture don't and they do over eat!
Also - I agree the over consumption of all sugar is a problem - I'm not isolating fructose.
I agree that they are different metabolic pathways and everything I've seen indicates that this is the case. The issue for me is that one pathway is not objectively more or less harmful on health than the other, but they are different.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions