Why the hate on Sugar?
Replies
-
This content has been removed.
-
Sucrose, also known as table sugar, is a glucose molecule and a fructose molecule bonded together with an oxygen bond. Honey is broken down sugar, glucose and fructose without the bond. It takes less work for the body to digest honey.
And I just wanted to say, I may be the only one who used to have fruit binges, and my blood sugar suffered with it.0 -
Ok, here's the thing. People here keep telling me with food, context is key. If you get in all of your micronutrient needs, I can understand sugar not being bad. But in general (not MFP members), who does? Without supplements, there are certain micros that are hard to meet unless one is eating very high quantities of some food groups.emily_stew wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
What other explanation would be for why sugar gets so much hate?
Great. You got chased out of the bulking section, now you gotta torture the rest of us out here?ForecasterJason wrote: »
-Fear mongering in the media (usually by some quack attempting to sell something..looking at you, Dr. Oz..)
-Poor education and understanding of nutrition
-A desire for a scapegoat. I'm old enough to remember when fat was the scapegoat. Now it seems to be sugar.
Edit: phrasing
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Ok, here's the thing. People here keep telling me with food, context is key. If you get in all of your micronutrient needs, I can understand sugar not being bad. But in general (not MFP members), who does? Without supplements, there are certain micros that are hard to meet unless one is eating very high quantities of some food groups.emily_stew wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
What other explanation would be for why sugar gets so much hate?
Great. You got chased out of the bulking section, now you gotta torture the rest of us out here?ForecasterJason wrote: »
-Fear mongering in the media (usually by some quack attempting to sell something..looking at you, Dr. Oz..)
-Poor education and understanding of nutrition
-A desire for a scapegoat. I'm old enough to remember when fat was the scapegoat. Now it seems to be sugar.
Edit: phrasing
You're moving the goal posts here, but I'll bite. Which micros are hard to meet? Let's forget the average person who doesn't understand nutrition at all (most people don't know what macros are or what they do). Let's say the average person who makes an effort to meet micros while fitting cookies and cake into their macro goal.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Dang, I didn't realize how many people saw that thread.emily_stew wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Ok, here's the thing. People here keep telling me with food, context is key. If you get in all of your micronutrient needs, I can understand sugar not being bad. But in general (not MFP members), who does? Without supplements, there are certain micros that are hard to meet unless one is eating very high quantities of some food groups.emily_stew wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
What other explanation would be for why sugar gets so much hate?
Great. You got chased out of the bulking section, now you gotta torture the rest of us out here?ForecasterJason wrote: »
-Fear mongering in the media (usually by some quack attempting to sell something..looking at you, Dr. Oz..)
-Poor education and understanding of nutrition
-A desire for a scapegoat. I'm old enough to remember when fat was the scapegoat. Now it seems to be sugar.
Edit: phrasing
I'm not sure I really understand your question.
I do know your Calorie Surplus thread in another section here is a giant rabbit-hole of excuses and other ridiculousness. Honestly, the answer to your question is probably in one of the pages of that thread.
And no, this was not discussed in that thread. What I'm saying is if someone is getting 100% of the recommended amount of all micronutrients, I can understand there not being anything wrong with sugar. But given the number of people that are most likely falling short on some nutrients (especially USDA recommendations), I tend to think that sugar is not "good" in this case. I don't think there's anything wrong with consuming it in moderate amounts, however.0 -
Potassium and to some extent magnesium.ForecasterJason wrote: »
Ok, here's the thing. People here keep telling me with food, context is key. If you get in all of your micronutrient needs, I can understand sugar not being bad. But in general (not MFP members), who does? Without supplements, there are certain micros that are hard to meet unless one is eating very high quantities of some food groups.emily_stew wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
What other explanation would be for why sugar gets so much hate?
Great. You got chased out of the bulking section, now you gotta torture the rest of us out here?ForecasterJason wrote: »
-Fear mongering in the media (usually by some quack attempting to sell something..looking at you, Dr. Oz..)
-Poor education and understanding of nutrition
-A desire for a scapegoat. I'm old enough to remember when fat was the scapegoat. Now it seems to be sugar.
Edit: phrasing
You're moving the goal posts here, but I'll bite. Which micros are hard to meet? Let's forget the average person who doesn't understand nutrition at all (most people don't know what macros are or what they do). Let's say the average person who makes an effort to meet micros while fitting cookies and cake into their macro goal.
0 -
Well duh, eating large amounts of sugar isn't the best way to meet daily micronutrient requirements....Eating large amounts of one thing, any one thing isn't the best way to meet those same requirements........your nutrient deficient with or without sugar.ForecasterJason wrote: »
Dang, I didn't realize how many people saw that thread.emily_stew wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Ok, here's the thing. People here keep telling me with food, context is key. If you get in all of your micronutrient needs, I can understand sugar not being bad. But in general (not MFP members), who does? Without supplements, there are certain micros that are hard to meet unless one is eating very high quantities of some food groups.emily_stew wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
What other explanation would be for why sugar gets so much hate?
Great. You got chased out of the bulking section, now you gotta torture the rest of us out here?ForecasterJason wrote: »
-Fear mongering in the media (usually by some quack attempting to sell something..looking at you, Dr. Oz..)
-Poor education and understanding of nutrition
-A desire for a scapegoat. I'm old enough to remember when fat was the scapegoat. Now it seems to be sugar.
Edit: phrasing
I'm not sure I really understand your question.
I do know your Calorie Surplus thread in another section here is a giant rabbit-hole of excuses and other ridiculousness. Honestly, the answer to your question is probably in one of the pages of that thread.
And no, this was not discussed in that thread. What I'm saying is if someone is getting 100% of the recommended amount of all micronutrients, I can understand there not being anything wrong with sugar. But given the number of people that are most likely falling short on some nutrients (especially USDA recommendations), I tend to think that sugar is not "good" in this case. I don't think there's anything wrong with consuming it in moderate amounts, however.
0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Dang, I didn't realize how many people saw that thread.emily_stew wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Ok, here's the thing. People here keep telling me with food, context is key. If you get in all of your micronutrient needs, I can understand sugar not being bad. But in general (not MFP members), who does? Without supplements, there are certain micros that are hard to meet unless one is eating very high quantities of some food groups.emily_stew wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
What other explanation would be for why sugar gets so much hate?
Great. You got chased out of the bulking section, now you gotta torture the rest of us out here?ForecasterJason wrote: »
-Fear mongering in the media (usually by some quack attempting to sell something..looking at you, Dr. Oz..)
-Poor education and understanding of nutrition
-A desire for a scapegoat. I'm old enough to remember when fat was the scapegoat. Now it seems to be sugar.
Edit: phrasing
I'm not sure I really understand your question.
I do know your Calorie Surplus thread in another section here is a giant rabbit-hole of excuses and other ridiculousness. Honestly, the answer to your question is probably in one of the pages of that thread.
And no, this was not discussed in that thread. What I'm saying is if someone is getting 100% of the recommended amount of all micronutrients, I can understand there not being anything wrong with sugar. But given the number of people that are most likely falling short on some nutrients (especially USDA recommendations), I tend to think that sugar is not "good" in this case. I don't think there's anything wrong with consuming it in moderate amounts, however.
It's not that sugar is not good, it's that people don't even know what macros are or what they do. That goes back to poor education. That is why people are falling short and why people are gaining weight. That's why so many people log in here for the first time with zero idea how to start.0 -
nature0721 wrote: »I have been substituting honey for sugar. I know it higher in calories than sugar. It natural and has lots of health benefits.
And the sucrose in honey is different than table sugar how again?
Bees are cool and you can buy it at the farmer's market.
It also tastes better in some things (and presumably is less ideal in others).
Oh, you mean nutritionally?0 -
Ok. I have read in some places that sugar requires processing by certain micros like magnesium to metabolize it. Is this true?ForecasterJason wrote: »
Dang, I didn't realize how many people saw that thread.emily_stew wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Ok, here's the thing. People here keep telling me with food, context is key. If you get in all of your micronutrient needs, I can understand sugar not being bad. But in general (not MFP members), who does? Without supplements, there are certain micros that are hard to meet unless one is eating very high quantities of some food groups.emily_stew wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
What other explanation would be for why sugar gets so much hate?
Great. You got chased out of the bulking section, now you gotta torture the rest of us out here?ForecasterJason wrote: »
-Fear mongering in the media (usually by some quack attempting to sell something..looking at you, Dr. Oz..)
-Poor education and understanding of nutrition
-A desire for a scapegoat. I'm old enough to remember when fat was the scapegoat. Now it seems to be sugar.
Edit: phrasing
I'm not sure I really understand your question.
I do know your Calorie Surplus thread in another section here is a giant rabbit-hole of excuses and other ridiculousness. Honestly, the answer to your question is probably in one of the pages of that thread.
And no, this was not discussed in that thread. What I'm saying is if someone is getting 100% of the recommended amount of all micronutrients, I can understand there not being anything wrong with sugar. But given the number of people that are most likely falling short on some nutrients (especially USDA recommendations), I tend to think that sugar is not "good" in this case. I don't think there's anything wrong with consuming it in moderate amounts, however.
It's not that sugar is not good, it's that people don't even know what macros are or what they do. That goes back to poor education. That is why people are falling short and why people are gaining weight. That's why so many people log in here for the first time with zero idea how to start.
0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Potassium and to some extent magnesium.ForecasterJason wrote: »
Ok, here's the thing. People here keep telling me with food, context is key. If you get in all of your micronutrient needs, I can understand sugar not being bad. But in general (not MFP members), who does? Without supplements, there are certain micros that are hard to meet unless one is eating very high quantities of some food groups.emily_stew wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
What other explanation would be for why sugar gets so much hate?
Great. You got chased out of the bulking section, now you gotta torture the rest of us out here?ForecasterJason wrote: »
-Fear mongering in the media (usually by some quack attempting to sell something..looking at you, Dr. Oz..)
-Poor education and understanding of nutrition
-A desire for a scapegoat. I'm old enough to remember when fat was the scapegoat. Now it seems to be sugar.
Edit: phrasing
You're moving the goal posts here, but I'll bite. Which micros are hard to meet? Let's forget the average person who doesn't understand nutrition at all (most people don't know what macros are or what they do). Let's say the average person who makes an effort to meet micros while fitting cookies and cake into their macro goal.
If you go off the food entries on MFP you'd think you are short. Unfortunately most the foods logged on here don't contain either (most packaging doesn't contain the information for potassium or magnesium). Most people are probably fairly close without trying. In fact, doctors suggest you don't take a supplement for potassium or magnesium unless you've had blood work that has shown your are deficient since getting too much can cause problems.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Ok. I have read in some places that sugar requires processing by certain micros like magnesium to metabolize it. Is this true?ForecasterJason wrote: »
Dang, I didn't realize how many people saw that thread.emily_stew wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Ok, here's the thing. People here keep telling me with food, context is key. If you get in all of your micronutrient needs, I can understand sugar not being bad. But in general (not MFP members), who does? Without supplements, there are certain micros that are hard to meet unless one is eating very high quantities of some food groups.emily_stew wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
What other explanation would be for why sugar gets so much hate?
Great. You got chased out of the bulking section, now you gotta torture the rest of us out here?ForecasterJason wrote: »
-Fear mongering in the media (usually by some quack attempting to sell something..looking at you, Dr. Oz..)
-Poor education and understanding of nutrition
-A desire for a scapegoat. I'm old enough to remember when fat was the scapegoat. Now it seems to be sugar.
Edit: phrasing
I'm not sure I really understand your question.
I do know your Calorie Surplus thread in another section here is a giant rabbit-hole of excuses and other ridiculousness. Honestly, the answer to your question is probably in one of the pages of that thread.
And no, this was not discussed in that thread. What I'm saying is if someone is getting 100% of the recommended amount of all micronutrients, I can understand there not being anything wrong with sugar. But given the number of people that are most likely falling short on some nutrients (especially USDA recommendations), I tend to think that sugar is not "good" in this case. I don't think there's anything wrong with consuming it in moderate amounts, however.
It's not that sugar is not good, it's that people don't even know what macros are or what they do. That goes back to poor education. That is why people are falling short and why people are gaining weight. That's why so many people log in here for the first time with zero idea how to start.
You have that backwards. Magnesium, iron, and manganese are needed for the metabolism of glucose (along with a few other things like niacin and thiamin).0 -
people that are addicted to sugar get upset when you tell them sugar is bad for them. if they would just break the addiction they would understand, but they are not ready to do that yet.-1
-
So then wouldn't it be true that the more sugar is consumed, the more of those nutrients are needed?ForecasterJason wrote: »
Ok. I have read in some places that sugar requires processing by certain micros like magnesium to metabolize it. Is this true?ForecasterJason wrote: »
Dang, I didn't realize how many people saw that thread.emily_stew wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Ok, here's the thing. People here keep telling me with food, context is key. If you get in all of your micronutrient needs, I can understand sugar not being bad. But in general (not MFP members), who does? Without supplements, there are certain micros that are hard to meet unless one is eating very high quantities of some food groups.emily_stew wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
What other explanation would be for why sugar gets so much hate?
Great. You got chased out of the bulking section, now you gotta torture the rest of us out here?ForecasterJason wrote: »
-Fear mongering in the media (usually by some quack attempting to sell something..looking at you, Dr. Oz..)
-Poor education and understanding of nutrition
-A desire for a scapegoat. I'm old enough to remember when fat was the scapegoat. Now it seems to be sugar.
Edit: phrasing
I'm not sure I really understand your question.
I do know your Calorie Surplus thread in another section here is a giant rabbit-hole of excuses and other ridiculousness. Honestly, the answer to your question is probably in one of the pages of that thread.
And no, this was not discussed in that thread. What I'm saying is if someone is getting 100% of the recommended amount of all micronutrients, I can understand there not being anything wrong with sugar. But given the number of people that are most likely falling short on some nutrients (especially USDA recommendations), I tend to think that sugar is not "good" in this case. I don't think there's anything wrong with consuming it in moderate amounts, however.
It's not that sugar is not good, it's that people don't even know what macros are or what they do. That goes back to poor education. That is why people are falling short and why people are gaining weight. That's why so many people log in here for the first time with zero idea how to start.
You have that backwards. Magnesium, iron, and manganese are needed for the metabolism of glucose (along with a few other things like niacin and thiamin).
0 -
people that are addicted to sugar get upset when you tell them sugar is bad for them. if they would just break the addiction they would understand, but they are not ready to do that yet.
You sure have a way with inflammatory wording. I've seen you do it in other threads.
I was "addicted to sugar", but eventually I realized I just had very low impulse control and really bad habits. Education and awareness go a very long way.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
So then wouldn't it be true that the more sugar is consumed, the more of those nutrients are needed?ForecasterJason wrote: »
Ok. I have read in some places that sugar requires processing by certain micros like magnesium to metabolize it. Is this true?ForecasterJason wrote: »
Dang, I didn't realize how many people saw that thread.emily_stew wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Ok, here's the thing. People here keep telling me with food, context is key. If you get in all of your micronutrient needs, I can understand sugar not being bad. But in general (not MFP members), who does? Without supplements, there are certain micros that are hard to meet unless one is eating very high quantities of some food groups.emily_stew wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
What other explanation would be for why sugar gets so much hate?
Great. You got chased out of the bulking section, now you gotta torture the rest of us out here?ForecasterJason wrote: »
-Fear mongering in the media (usually by some quack attempting to sell something..looking at you, Dr. Oz..)
-Poor education and understanding of nutrition
-A desire for a scapegoat. I'm old enough to remember when fat was the scapegoat. Now it seems to be sugar.
Edit: phrasing
I'm not sure I really understand your question.
I do know your Calorie Surplus thread in another section here is a giant rabbit-hole of excuses and other ridiculousness. Honestly, the answer to your question is probably in one of the pages of that thread.
And no, this was not discussed in that thread. What I'm saying is if someone is getting 100% of the recommended amount of all micronutrients, I can understand there not being anything wrong with sugar. But given the number of people that are most likely falling short on some nutrients (especially USDA recommendations), I tend to think that sugar is not "good" in this case. I don't think there's anything wrong with consuming it in moderate amounts, however.
It's not that sugar is not good, it's that people don't even know what macros are or what they do. That goes back to poor education. That is why people are falling short and why people are gaining weight. That's why so many people log in here for the first time with zero idea how to start.
You have that backwards. Magnesium, iron, and manganese are needed for the metabolism of glucose (along with a few other things like niacin and thiamin).
No.
I also think you don't understand carbs.0 -
I wasn't thinking right for a moment, as I do realize carbs are broken down into glucose. So then the more carbs that are consumed, the more those nutrients are needed, then? Do I have that right?ForecasterJason wrote: »
So then wouldn't it be true that the more sugar is consumed, the more of those nutrients are needed?ForecasterJason wrote: »
Ok. I have read in some places that sugar requires processing by certain micros like magnesium to metabolize it. Is this true?ForecasterJason wrote: »
Dang, I didn't realize how many people saw that thread.emily_stew wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Ok, here's the thing. People here keep telling me with food, context is key. If you get in all of your micronutrient needs, I can understand sugar not being bad. But in general (not MFP members), who does? Without supplements, there are certain micros that are hard to meet unless one is eating very high quantities of some food groups.emily_stew wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
What other explanation would be for why sugar gets so much hate?
Great. You got chased out of the bulking section, now you gotta torture the rest of us out here?ForecasterJason wrote: »
-Fear mongering in the media (usually by some quack attempting to sell something..looking at you, Dr. Oz..)
-Poor education and understanding of nutrition
-A desire for a scapegoat. I'm old enough to remember when fat was the scapegoat. Now it seems to be sugar.
Edit: phrasing
I'm not sure I really understand your question.
I do know your Calorie Surplus thread in another section here is a giant rabbit-hole of excuses and other ridiculousness. Honestly, the answer to your question is probably in one of the pages of that thread.
And no, this was not discussed in that thread. What I'm saying is if someone is getting 100% of the recommended amount of all micronutrients, I can understand there not being anything wrong with sugar. But given the number of people that are most likely falling short on some nutrients (especially USDA recommendations), I tend to think that sugar is not "good" in this case. I don't think there's anything wrong with consuming it in moderate amounts, however.
It's not that sugar is not good, it's that people don't even know what macros are or what they do. That goes back to poor education. That is why people are falling short and why people are gaining weight. That's why so many people log in here for the first time with zero idea how to start.
You have that backwards. Magnesium, iron, and manganese are needed for the metabolism of glucose (along with a few other things like niacin and thiamin).
No.
I also think you don't understand carbs.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
ForecasterJason wrote: »
I wasn't thinking right for a moment, as I do realize carbs are broken down into glucose. So then the more carbs that are consumed, the more those nutrients are needed, then? Do I have that right?ForecasterJason wrote: »
So then wouldn't it be true that the more sugar is consumed, the more of those nutrients are needed?ForecasterJason wrote: »
Ok. I have read in some places that sugar requires processing by certain micros like magnesium to metabolize it. Is this true?ForecasterJason wrote: »
Dang, I didn't realize how many people saw that thread.emily_stew wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Ok, here's the thing. People here keep telling me with food, context is key. If you get in all of your micronutrient needs, I can understand sugar not being bad. But in general (not MFP members), who does? Without supplements, there are certain micros that are hard to meet unless one is eating very high quantities of some food groups.emily_stew wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
What other explanation would be for why sugar gets so much hate?
Great. You got chased out of the bulking section, now you gotta torture the rest of us out here?ForecasterJason wrote: »
-Fear mongering in the media (usually by some quack attempting to sell something..looking at you, Dr. Oz..)
-Poor education and understanding of nutrition
-A desire for a scapegoat. I'm old enough to remember when fat was the scapegoat. Now it seems to be sugar.
Edit: phrasing
I'm not sure I really understand your question.
I do know your Calorie Surplus thread in another section here is a giant rabbit-hole of excuses and other ridiculousness. Honestly, the answer to your question is probably in one of the pages of that thread.
And no, this was not discussed in that thread. What I'm saying is if someone is getting 100% of the recommended amount of all micronutrients, I can understand there not being anything wrong with sugar. But given the number of people that are most likely falling short on some nutrients (especially USDA recommendations), I tend to think that sugar is not "good" in this case. I don't think there's anything wrong with consuming it in moderate amounts, however.
It's not that sugar is not good, it's that people don't even know what macros are or what they do. That goes back to poor education. That is why people are falling short and why people are gaining weight. That's why so many people log in here for the first time with zero idea how to start.
You have that backwards. Magnesium, iron, and manganese are needed for the metabolism of glucose (along with a few other things like niacin and thiamin).
No.
I also think you don't understand carbs.
Still no.
The USDA recommendations for macros is actually very interesting. 18% Protein, 29% Fat, 53% Carbs. I know most people increase protein and decrease carbs. So, even if the USDA recommendations for magnesium, iron and the other micros were based on carbohydrate intake that means many of us might be getting too much if we hit their suggestions.0 -
I'm more confused now. Are you referring to the micros specifically that are abundant in high carb foods? Since there is a wide range of differences in micro content among high carb foods (like white bread vs wheat bran), I'm missing the direct connection between carb and micro intake.ForecasterJason wrote: »
I wasn't thinking right for a moment, as I do realize carbs are broken down into glucose. So then the more carbs that are consumed, the more those nutrients are needed, then? Do I have that right?ForecasterJason wrote: »
So then wouldn't it be true that the more sugar is consumed, the more of those nutrients are needed?ForecasterJason wrote: »
Ok. I have read in some places that sugar requires processing by certain micros like magnesium to metabolize it. Is this true?ForecasterJason wrote: »
Dang, I didn't realize how many people saw that thread.emily_stew wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Ok, here's the thing. People here keep telling me with food, context is key. If you get in all of your micronutrient needs, I can understand sugar not being bad. But in general (not MFP members), who does? Without supplements, there are certain micros that are hard to meet unless one is eating very high quantities of some food groups.emily_stew wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
What other explanation would be for why sugar gets so much hate?
Great. You got chased out of the bulking section, now you gotta torture the rest of us out here?ForecasterJason wrote: »
-Fear mongering in the media (usually by some quack attempting to sell something..looking at you, Dr. Oz..)
-Poor education and understanding of nutrition
-A desire for a scapegoat. I'm old enough to remember when fat was the scapegoat. Now it seems to be sugar.
Edit: phrasing
I'm not sure I really understand your question.
I do know your Calorie Surplus thread in another section here is a giant rabbit-hole of excuses and other ridiculousness. Honestly, the answer to your question is probably in one of the pages of that thread.
And no, this was not discussed in that thread. What I'm saying is if someone is getting 100% of the recommended amount of all micronutrients, I can understand there not being anything wrong with sugar. But given the number of people that are most likely falling short on some nutrients (especially USDA recommendations), I tend to think that sugar is not "good" in this case. I don't think there's anything wrong with consuming it in moderate amounts, however.
It's not that sugar is not good, it's that people don't even know what macros are or what they do. That goes back to poor education. That is why people are falling short and why people are gaining weight. That's why so many people log in here for the first time with zero idea how to start.
You have that backwards. Magnesium, iron, and manganese are needed for the metabolism of glucose (along with a few other things like niacin and thiamin).
No.
I also think you don't understand carbs.
Still no.
The USDA recommendations for macros is actually very interesting. 18% Protein, 29% Fat, 53% Carbs. I know most people increase protein and decrease carbs. So, even if the USDA recommendations for magnesium, iron and the other micros were based on carbohydrate intake that means many of us might be getting too much if we hit their suggestions.
0 -
I didn't know there was one I like sugar shrug lol0
-
ForecasterJason wrote: »
I'm more confused now. Are you referring to the micros specifically that are abundant in high carb foods? Since there is a wide range of differences in micro content among high carb foods (like white bread vs wheat bran), I'm missing the direct connection between carb and micro intake.ForecasterJason wrote: »
I wasn't thinking right for a moment, as I do realize carbs are broken down into glucose. So then the more carbs that are consumed, the more those nutrients are needed, then? Do I have that right?ForecasterJason wrote: »
So then wouldn't it be true that the more sugar is consumed, the more of those nutrients are needed?ForecasterJason wrote: »
Ok. I have read in some places that sugar requires processing by certain micros like magnesium to metabolize it. Is this true?ForecasterJason wrote: »
Dang, I didn't realize how many people saw that thread.emily_stew wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Ok, here's the thing. People here keep telling me with food, context is key. If you get in all of your micronutrient needs, I can understand sugar not being bad. But in general (not MFP members), who does? Without supplements, there are certain micros that are hard to meet unless one is eating very high quantities of some food groups.emily_stew wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
What other explanation would be for why sugar gets so much hate?
Great. You got chased out of the bulking section, now you gotta torture the rest of us out here?ForecasterJason wrote: »
-Fear mongering in the media (usually by some quack attempting to sell something..looking at you, Dr. Oz..)
-Poor education and understanding of nutrition
-A desire for a scapegoat. I'm old enough to remember when fat was the scapegoat. Now it seems to be sugar.
Edit: phrasing
I'm not sure I really understand your question.
I do know your Calorie Surplus thread in another section here is a giant rabbit-hole of excuses and other ridiculousness. Honestly, the answer to your question is probably in one of the pages of that thread.
And no, this was not discussed in that thread. What I'm saying is if someone is getting 100% of the recommended amount of all micronutrients, I can understand there not being anything wrong with sugar. But given the number of people that are most likely falling short on some nutrients (especially USDA recommendations), I tend to think that sugar is not "good" in this case. I don't think there's anything wrong with consuming it in moderate amounts, however.
It's not that sugar is not good, it's that people don't even know what macros are or what they do. That goes back to poor education. That is why people are falling short and why people are gaining weight. That's why so many people log in here for the first time with zero idea how to start.
You have that backwards. Magnesium, iron, and manganese are needed for the metabolism of glucose (along with a few other things like niacin and thiamin).
No.
I also think you don't understand carbs.
Still no.
The USDA recommendations for macros is actually very interesting. 18% Protein, 29% Fat, 53% Carbs. I know most people increase protein and decrease carbs. So, even if the USDA recommendations for magnesium, iron and the other micros were based on carbohydrate intake that means many of us might be getting too much if we hit their suggestions.
There is no connection. You were trying to build one and I was showing you how it was irrelevant. You're obviously in over your head on this and that's okay. We all start somewhere. Even I am still learning.
You have, however, successfully managed to move the goal post and turn attention away from your claims that sugar has no nutritional value and is bad for you.0 -
people that are addicted to sugar get upset when you tell them sugar is bad for them. if they would just break the addiction they would understand, but they are not ready to do that yet.
So where can I buy such a tall horse like the white charger you just rode in on? Oh, and can you ride it back out? Thanks.0 -
Hmm is there a popcorn scare oh with hell IDC gets it anyways this is interesting0
-
healthiermeep wrote: »Hmm is there a popcorn scare oh with hell IDC gets it anyways this is interesting
Don't worry, these threads are a daily occurrence but most get mod nuked eventually. Wait till the GIFs start showing up then you know it won't be long.0 -
The idea of "addiction to sugar" always drives me nuts. As cute as those little puff pieces on the today show are, sugar is not more addictive than [insert scare drug here]. Watch someone with a real addiction go through detox and then tell me again how you're a "choco-holic."0
-
I've been very impressed how resistant MFP threads seem to be to Godwin's Law.Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Don't worry, these threads are a daily occurrence but most get mod nuked eventually. Wait till the GIFs start showing up then you know it won't be long.
0 -
FoCoAlphaNerd wrote: »
I've been very impressed how resistant MFP threads seem to be to Godwin's Law.Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Don't worry, these threads are a daily occurrence but most get mod nuked eventually. Wait till the GIFs start showing up then you know it won't be long.
That's just one of the things they are resistant to lol.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