*RANT* Sugar, sugar, sugar!
Replies
-
nope- I'm with you. We have I think reached a logical and reasonable consensus. (WOOT- think that's a big thing on MFP!)
I personally wouldn't say "bad"- only because I - in my own world- like to move away from terms like "junk" unhealthy etc etc etc- but yes- I can understand how it's something someone would avoid because it's bad in a broader sense - and why they would say- I can't do sugar in X, Y Z form- it's bad for me."
I would hope- also for them they would understand- or begin to understand and move toward a healthy way of dealing with that so they could engage with said trouble food in am more moderate fashion. hope being the operative word- and understand that fundamentally the food is not bad for them on a physical level.
That being said- I also understand the need to separate from things you have an unhealthy relationship with and also to use words that people who don't engage in these types of topics will understand.... so - to a completely generic- cold conversation if someone asks me what I eat- I'll typically say I eat in moderation- count calories and I make sacrifices for junk food.
Now- I don't honestly think it's junk food- but it's easier than explaining- it's a higher calorie price and it means I'm going to be hungry- or doing some extra running for it- but I don't inherently think it's junk- sometimes it's just easier for conversation to say that.
Awesome -- I'm with you on that, too. Thanks for the conversation!
0 -
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.0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »
Actually people chimed in her to ask her WHY is she cutting and to tell her in reality, it's not necessary unless you have some specific medical reasons for doing so.
Sugar is no more the devil then any other specific nutrient ingredient.
To be honest, I'd probably report this post if I had the ability. Your attack on others while not that bad in MY opinion, I've received a warning for less.
I think the end game for me is that I've successfully dealt with my sugar problem. I used to binge on sweet foods; now I don't. I don't have a medical condition that required me to reduce my sugar, but I did have a self-control problem. Once I reduced my refined sugar intake, I no longer had a self-control problem.
When you say you've received a warning, do you mean someone has actually sent you a message in your inbox? I'm not sure how the system works; people talk about getting warnings or points but I've never seen them, and plenty of my posts have been flagged.0 -
DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »
Actually people chimed in her to ask her WHY is she cutting and to tell her in reality, it's not necessary unless you have some specific medical reasons for doing so.
Sugar is no more the devil then any other specific nutrient ingredient.
To be honest, I'd probably report this post if I had the ability. Your attack on others while not that bad in MY opinion, I've received a warning for less.
I think the end game for me is that I've successfully dealt with my sugar problem. I used to binge on sweet foods; now I don't. I don't have a medical condition that required me to reduce my sugar, but I did have a self-control problem. Once I reduced my refined sugar intake, I no longer had a self-control problem.
When you say you've received a warning, do you mean someone has actually sent you a message in your inbox? I'm not sure how the system works; people talk about getting warnings or points but I've never seen them, and plenty of my posts have been flagged.
It's fine to state what you did in order to combat your personal problem with sugar. But to arbitrarily assign some moral value like "bad" or "evil" and then proclaim this to everyone beyond yourself, that's where the problem begins. But you know what? I can't really blame you. This SITE has articles advising how "bad" sugar is. Which is stupid when you think about it0 -
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.
Wouldn't that include any cooked food? Because by definition it's altered by man-applied heat? Surely that's more inclusive than intended?0 -
The op could choose other berries for her morning smoothies...One cup of strawberries or blackberries are between 5 - 7 grams.
Bananas have got to be the highest fruit out there! That's why people who need to gain weight eat those.
"Bananas are basically nature's cupcakes" as someone posted earlier...
0 -
Focus on calories and macro nutrients and don't sweat the details.0
-
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.
Wouldn't that include any cooked food? Because by definition it's altered by man-applied heat? Surely that's more inclusive than intended?
Technically, yes, unless it was cooked by naturally occuring heat. But the ingredients could still be natural.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
I think the thing to watch is "added" sugars, not natural sugars...not sure if on 9 pages of responses, someone has already mentioned this...also as a note, bananas because of their high sugars, half is considered a portion.....
I can sympathize with your frustration, as I too, watch when I can, the dreaded sugars.....0 -
This content has been removed.
-
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 =
Does that mean the OP should stay out of her own thread? I don't recall her having diabetes.0 -
I think the thing to watch is "added" sugars, not natural sugars...not sure if on 9 pages of responses, someone has already mentioned this...also as a note, bananas because of their high sugars, half is considered a portion.....
I can sympathize with your frustration, as I too, watch when I can, the dreaded sugars.....
Nope, no one has said that....
:insertsarcasm:
0 -
I think the thing to watch is "added" sugars, not natural sugars...not sure if on 9 pages of responses, someone has already mentioned this...also as a note, bananas because of their high sugars, half is considered a portion.....
I can sympathize with your frustration, as I too, watch when I can, the dreaded sugars.....
You've never participated in an MFP sugar thread, have you?0 -
*disclaimer - I have not read the responses to this thread, but I can tell you as a diabetic, the carbs you consume are a much more important number than the sugar by itself. I am not sure how MFP calculates sugar but 27g is not nearly enough for them to limit you to. You should consume approx 45g carbs per meal and for me MFP calculates enough into my 1300 calorie goal to allow this.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.
0 -
*disclaimer - I have not read the responses to this thread, but I can tell you as a diabetic, the carbs you consume are a much more important number than the sugar by itself. I am not sure how MFP calculates sugar but 27g is not nearly enough for them to limit you to. You should consume approx 45g carbs per meal and for me MFP calculates enough into my 1300 calorie goal to allow this.
I like all the people white knighting diabetics, but the actual diabetics are telling the OP to not track sugar and focus only on carbs...0 -
JeffseekingV 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...?
I remember seeing a thread that would probably clear up a lot of the common misunderstandings about foods
hmmmm where did that thread go....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?0 -
bkhamill wrote: »
*disclaimer - I have not read the responses to this thread, but I can tell you as a diabetic, the carbs you consume are a much more important number than the sugar by itself. I am not sure how MFP calculates sugar but 27g is not nearly enough for them to limit you to. You should consume approx 45g carbs per meal and for me MFP calculates enough into my 1300 calorie goal to allow this.
I like all the people white knighting diabetics, but the actual diabetics are telling the OP to not track sugar and focus only on carbs...
I am not sure what you mean by white knighting.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
bkhamill wrote: »
*disclaimer - I have not read the responses to this thread, but I can tell you as a diabetic, the carbs you consume are a much more important number than the sugar by itself. I am not sure how MFP calculates sugar but 27g is not nearly enough for them to limit you to. You should consume approx 45g carbs per meal and for me MFP calculates enough into my 1300 calorie goal to allow this.
I like all the people white knighting diabetics, but the actual diabetics are telling the OP to not track sugar and focus only on carbs...
I am not sure what you mean by white knighting.
Many people have said not to track sugar. Many other people went crazy and said of course people need to track sugar and reduce it, especially since some medical conditions (the two named have been diabetes and insulin resistance) have to reduce sugar so they must track it.
White knight essentially means defending someone else, but they're failing at it. My mom is diabetic, and like you she has never tracked sugar, she tracks carbs. People are falling over themselves to prove a point by using diabetics as evidence, and they're just wrong.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?
Who would've thunk it?0 -
Are you sure this is not typo? Because I thought we were talking about "natural". Where did this reference to processing come from?0 -
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.
0 -
clean eating is a myth. Or not, or was supposed to be, or is but isn't0
-
Clean eating is big foot.0
-
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.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 423 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