Why the hate on Sugar?
Replies
-
This might be a better fit for the ice cream thread, but I'm going to post it here anyway.
I'm the farthest thing from a "sugar is evil" type of person that there is. But, as I've been monitoring my intake, I've found that I have reduced the amount of sugar I use. Looking at tea for instance. Would I rather add sugar to my tea, or drink the tea black and use those calories elsewhere? I've learned to enjoy my tea black and would rather have a caramel at the end of the day instead (or a little more protein at dinner, or an extra snack, etc). It's about balancing your priorities. I'd rather skip the extra sweetening and be able to eat something extra later.
I know that a lot of people start suggesting things like skinny cow ice cream as a replacement for regular ice cream. But I find that when eating something like skinny cow, I don't ever feel satisfied with it. I do, however, feel more satisfied with one serving of regular ice cream, because that is what I was craving, not some poor excuse for a replacement. I could eat 10 skinny cows and not feel the same satisfaction.
In my experience, it's about finding your balance. Cut in some areas, indulge in others. YMMV.0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »OP I have a simple answer for you: people tend to look at things through black and white glasses because it makes things easier to deal with. It's easier for some people to say "sugar is evil" and be done with it than it is to say "oftentimes sugar comes packaged into high-calorie nutrient-poor food options" and then have to deal with portions, self-control, moderation and balancing nutrients.
This is what I was trying to say, but put much better and more succinctly.0 -
SingRunTing wrote: »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.
That's good to know. I've been working on my micros lately (I'm pretty good with macros in general) and was worried that I can never seem to hit my potassium. Thanks for the info!
@singrunting Check this site out: drugs.com/cg/potassium-content-of-foods-list.html
Thanks! I hit a good mix of items on that list on a daily basis, so I think I'm in the clear.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Ok. So assuming no medical issues are present, essentially someone eating like that with a wide variety of foods in their diet should not have to worry about blood work showing a nutrient deficiency, correct?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
So- I want to add into this- that the more restrictive people get- the more likely they are to have to go out of their way to add back in suppliments.
I.E. people who eat clean diets- and start cutting out huge chunks of food don't get the variety they need. - so Paleo people- anti carb people- anti "junk food" people- body builders also fall into this cateogry as well.
If you eat a variety of foods- and you never demonize anything- never lableling it and are generally hitting your macros through a variety of foods- you don't need to worry about micros.
they are MICROS. Do we know what that word means people MICRO
Obviously if their blood work shows a deficiency they need more. It doesn't mean that eating sugar caused that. My body does not store or use Vitamin D efficiently. I have to take 5,000 iu during the summer and 10,000 iu during the winter. I get Vitamin D in my food and from the sun, by my levels (even on a supplement) are very low. Taking a supplement barely gets me into the low normal range.0 -
cant' we have all of them?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
So- I want to add into this- that the more restrictive people get- the more likely they are to have to go out of their way to add back in suppliments.
I.E. people who eat clean diets- and start cutting out huge chunks of food don't get the variety they need. - so Paleo people- anti carb people- anti "junk food" people- body builders also fall into this cateogry as well.
If you eat a variety of foods- and you never demonize anything- never lableling it and are generally hitting your macros through a variety of foods- you don't need to worry about micros.
they are MICROS. Do we know what that word means people MICRO
Agreed. People who eat the same thing all the time whether clean or not, they won't get the micros in. And people who eat a lot of "dirty" (or processed, or whatever name we're calling it these days) foods are hitting their micros because those foods are fortified.
A snickers and or some ice cream goes a long way- just saying izall.
What about the snickers ice cream bars? I've never had one, but they seem tempting...
snickers
ice cream
snickers ice cream bar
snicker ice cream
why not- do all the snickers ice cream.
Turkey Hill or Friendly's make an snickers ice cream- tempting- so very tempting.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
They advise it for weight loss because to lose weight, you need to cut calories and sugar is easily cut without cutting nutrients. They're talking added sugars, not sugar in fruits. It's a nudge in the direction of "eat nutritious foods."
I don't agree with the "Only eat what you can pronounce" philosophy. I can pronounce a lot of things I don't want to eat. What if someone cannot pronounce "raspberry"? Raspberries don't become unhealthy because they can't pronounce it, KWIM?
That saying applies to the ingredients list. If you can't pronounce most of the ingredients AND you have no idea what it is, it is a good idea to avoid it. And I totally agree with this!0 -
cant' we have all of them?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
So- I want to add into this- that the more restrictive people get- the more likely they are to have to go out of their way to add back in suppliments.
I.E. people who eat clean diets- and start cutting out huge chunks of food don't get the variety they need. - so Paleo people- anti carb people- anti "junk food" people- body builders also fall into this cateogry as well.
If you eat a variety of foods- and you never demonize anything- never lableling it and are generally hitting your macros through a variety of foods- you don't need to worry about micros.
they are MICROS. Do we know what that word means people MICRO
Agreed. People who eat the same thing all the time whether clean or not, they won't get the micros in. And people who eat a lot of "dirty" (or processed, or whatever name we're calling it these days) foods are hitting their micros because those foods are fortified.
A snickers and or some ice cream goes a long way- just saying izall.
What about the snickers ice cream bars? I've never had one, but they seem tempting...
snickers
ice cream
snickers ice cream bar
snicker ice cream
why not- do all the snickers ice cream.
Turkey Hill or Friendly's make an snickers ice cream- tempting- so very tempting.
Snicker's ice cream bars are really good! The caramel is amazing.
Breyers makes a snickers ice cream. Never had it but it looks good. I love their waffle cone one though.
breyers.com/product/detail/113889/waffle-cone-chocolate-chip0 -
SingRunTing wrote: »In my experience, it's about finding your balance. Cut in some areas, indulge in others. YMMV.
This is my experience too. The way I think of it is that if I am going to eat something with higher calories and which is less nutrient dense, it had better provide something else, like sufficient enjoyment to justify inclusion. For me that means that I usually don't eat the lower calorie replacements like Skinny Cow or Arctic Zero (although I will try them if I think they might be good)* and I try to focus more on being satisfied with smaller amounts or having some things more rarely and when I do getting the really high quality stuff (to my taste). Even more significantly, it means I don't feel interested in most of the sweets that get put in my office kitchen, which once upon a time I would have thought were there as a sign that I needed a break and might as well eat one as an excuse. But if the really good cannoli that shows up about 3 times a year shows up, then, yeah, that's something I'll fit in my day.
I think all this would be confused if I was approaching it with the view "sugar bad, no sugar good."
*At this point I have not tried either.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
I agree as well.They advise it for weight loss because to lose weight, you need to cut calories and sugar is easily cut without cutting nutrients. They're talking added sugars, not sugar in fruits. It's a nudge in the direction of "eat nutritious foods."
I don't agree with the "Only eat what you can pronounce" philosophy. I can pronounce a lot of things I don't want to eat. What if someone cannot pronounce "raspberry"? Raspberries don't become unhealthy because they can't pronounce it, KWIM?
That saying applies to the ingredients list. If you can't pronounce most of the ingredients AND you have no idea what it is, it is a good idea to avoid it. And I totally agree with this!
0 -
They advise it for weight loss because to lose weight, you need to cut calories and sugar is easily cut without cutting nutrients. They're talking added sugars, not sugar in fruits. It's a nudge in the direction of "eat nutritious foods."
I don't agree with the "Only eat what you can pronounce" philosophy. I can pronounce a lot of things I don't want to eat. What if someone cannot pronounce "raspberry"? Raspberries don't become unhealthy because they can't pronounce it, KWIM?
That saying applies to the ingredients list. If you can't pronounce most of the ingredients AND you have no idea what it is, it is a good idea to avoid it. And I totally agree with this!
I can't pronounce most of these words or what they are. So bananas are bad???...or any fruit for that matter.0 -
They advise it for weight loss because to lose weight, you need to cut calories and sugar is easily cut without cutting nutrients. They're talking added sugars, not sugar in fruits. It's a nudge in the direction of "eat nutritious foods."
I don't agree with the "Only eat what you can pronounce" philosophy. I can pronounce a lot of things I don't want to eat. What if someone cannot pronounce "raspberry"? Raspberries don't become unhealthy because they can't pronounce it, KWIM?
That saying applies to the ingredients list. If you can't pronounce most of the ingredients AND you have no idea what it is, it is a good idea to avoid it. And I totally agree with this!
Have you ever read what makes up an apple? Do you know everything on that list?
I know what all the ingredients are, but only because I've spent years reading and researching ingredient lists.
0 -
They advise it for weight loss because to lose weight, you need to cut calories and sugar is easily cut without cutting nutrients. They're talking added sugars, not sugar in fruits. It's a nudge in the direction of "eat nutritious foods."
I don't agree with the "Only eat what you can pronounce" philosophy. I can pronounce a lot of things I don't want to eat. What if someone cannot pronounce "raspberry"? Raspberries don't become unhealthy because they can't pronounce it, KWIM?
That saying applies to the ingredients list. If you can't pronounce most of the ingredients AND you have no idea what it is, it is a good idea to avoid it. And I totally agree with this!
That's the most ludicrous idea ever.
Just educate yourself instead of avoiding things you don't know how to pronounce.
I hate when people say this. It's just so ignorant.0 -
Read more- comment less.ForecasterJason wrote: »
I agree as well.They advise it for weight loss because to lose weight, you need to cut calories and sugar is easily cut without cutting nutrients. They're talking added sugars, not sugar in fruits. It's a nudge in the direction of "eat nutritious foods."
I don't agree with the "Only eat what you can pronounce" philosophy. I can pronounce a lot of things I don't want to eat. What if someone cannot pronounce "raspberry"? Raspberries don't become unhealthy because they can't pronounce it, KWIM?
That saying applies to the ingredients list. If you can't pronounce most of the ingredients AND you have no idea what it is, it is a good idea to avoid it. And I totally agree with this!
-1 -
rcottonrph1 wrote: »Watch "Fed Up". Sugar is considered a major culprit behind the obesity epidemic. It is also highly inflammatory in the body, and inflammation promotes disease. It isn't an either/or. It is a good idea to avoid both artificial sweeteners and limit added sugar that doesn't come naturally from fruits and vegetables.
This is a fact..sugar promotes inflammation. I am a sugar addict, I love it in coffee and tea and anything else I can put it on. I have arthritis in my knees and feet, A few weeks ago I read an article about sugar causing inflammation; I cut out refined sugar completely and have seen a difference in the way my joints feel. I wish I had known sooner. I am still adjusting to the taste of coffee and tea without sugar but I am managing okay. Sometimes I use a little honey in my tea or stevia in my yogurt as a treat.0 -
I don't understand why challenges made to a certain point have to go to an extreme. This is elementary stuff.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »SingRunTing wrote: »In my experience, it's about finding your balance. Cut in some areas, indulge in others. YMMV.
This is my experience too. The way I think of it is that if I am going to eat something with higher calories and which is less nutrient dense, it had better provide something else, like sufficient enjoyment to justify inclusion. For me that means that I usually don't eat the lower calorie replacements like Skinny Cow or Arctic Zero (although I will try them if I think they might be good)* and I try to focus more on being satisfied with smaller amounts or having some things more rarely and when I do getting the really high quality stuff (to my taste). Even more significantly, it means I don't feel interested in most of the sweets that get put in my office kitchen, which once upon a time I would have thought were there as a sign that I needed a break and might as well eat one as an excuse. But if the really good cannoli that shows up about 3 times a year shows up, then, yeah, that's something I'll fit in my day.
I think all this would be confused if I was approaching it with the view "sugar bad, no sugar good."
*At this point I have not tried either.
I've had skinny cow pretty often because my mom always has some in her freezer. So if I'm at her house and want ice cream, its either a skinny cow ice cream sandwich or a tiny, sad 100 calorie klondike bar (I can seriously eat one in 2 bites).
The funny thing is that the skinny cow isn't actually fewer calories. One skinny cow ice cream sandwich is 150 calories and 1 serving of say Breyers waffle cone ice cream is 140 calories. Tastes way better, is roughly the same amount of ice cream, and is 10 fewer calories.0 -
not everyones body can sadlyIgnorance. I'll take real sugar to the chemicals that make sweeteners. Your body can process the real thing.
I have a condition where anything containing more than around 6 -8 grams of sugar makes me vomit, sweat, shaky, confused and ive been known to pass out
0 -
They advise it for weight loss because to lose weight, you need to cut calories and sugar is easily cut without cutting nutrients. They're talking added sugars, not sugar in fruits. It's a nudge in the direction of "eat nutritious foods."
I don't agree with the "Only eat what you can pronounce" philosophy. I can pronounce a lot of things I don't want to eat. What if someone cannot pronounce "raspberry"? Raspberries don't become unhealthy because they can't pronounce it, KWIM?
That saying applies to the ingredients list. If you can't pronounce most of the ingredients AND you have no idea what it is, it is a good idea to avoid it. And I totally agree with this!
That's the most ludicrous idea ever.
Just educate yourself instead of avoiding things you don't know how to pronounce.
I hate when people say this. It's just so ignorant.
It is ignorant, but I think that's the point. Not everyone wants to spend hours of their life researching food additives and their safety. So they choose to just not eat them or eat less of them. It's really not a major hardship for many people to get most of their intake from whole foods.0 -
I personally don't like it. I don't think it adds anything to my food besides a sweet flavor. I used to have a wicked sweet tooth -- I'd sugar my sugared cereals, get my coffees light and sweet -- and after many years of not adding sugar to anything and reading labels for added sugar I don't miss it. I can definitely tell when it's added to something like packaged bread and pasta sauces. IMO there's just no need for it. If I want sugar then I'll have something sweet. I don't need it in my food because someone thinks it makes it "taste better". Sorry, not to me.0
-
Ok, in relation to your previous comment about becoming educated about it, it is something that I do with certain things. Once I learn more about certain ingredients, then it makes me decide if it's something I think is good or not.
Read more- comment less.ForecasterJason wrote: »
I agree as well.They advise it for weight loss because to lose weight, you need to cut calories and sugar is easily cut without cutting nutrients. They're talking added sugars, not sugar in fruits. It's a nudge in the direction of "eat nutritious foods."
I don't agree with the "Only eat what you can pronounce" philosophy. I can pronounce a lot of things I don't want to eat. What if someone cannot pronounce "raspberry"? Raspberries don't become unhealthy because they can't pronounce it, KWIM?
That saying applies to the ingredients list. If you can't pronounce most of the ingredients AND you have no idea what it is, it is a good idea to avoid it. And I totally agree with this!
0 -
I think sugar is processed as fat in the body. i THINK. im not totaly sure. also, have you ever realized how *kitten* you feel when you eat too much sugar? you feel horrible. you get hyper and then you crash and feel bad. as for your question, i think experts say to eat sugar in moderation because a lot of foods with sugar in them are also high in fat and calories. some arent. i would just eat it in moderation and you should be fine.0
-
They advise it for weight loss because to lose weight, you need to cut calories and sugar is easily cut without cutting nutrients. They're talking added sugars, not sugar in fruits. It's a nudge in the direction of "eat nutritious foods."
I don't agree with the "Only eat what you can pronounce" philosophy. I can pronounce a lot of things I don't want to eat. What if someone cannot pronounce "raspberry"? Raspberries don't become unhealthy because they can't pronounce it, KWIM?
That saying applies to the ingredients list. If you can't pronounce most of the ingredients AND you have no idea what it is, it is a good idea to avoid it. And I totally agree with this!
I can't pronounce most of these words or what they are. So bananas are bad???...or any fruit for that matter.
These type of smart alleck answers alway annoy me. Depending on which dictionary you use, this list may or may not be a list of ingredients. But by the most common definition and the obvious one being used here, the chemical make-up of the banana is not what is meant by 'ingredient'.
If you were listing the ingredients for a banana smoothie, would you include that list? Or would list 'banana' as the ingredient?0 -
I think sugar is processed as fat in the body. i THINK. im not totaly sure. also, have you ever realized how *kitten* you feel when you eat too much sugar? you feel horrible. you get hyper and then you crash and feel bad. as for your question, i think experts say to eat sugar in moderation because a lot of foods with sugar in them are also high in fat and calories. some arent. i would just eat it in moderation and you should be fine.
Sugar is not processed directly into fat in the body*. You feel crappy when you have too much sugar because you aren't meeting the other needs your body has.
*ETA: This is in a calorie deficit. I'm sure someone would challenge my claims if I left that out.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »They advise it for weight loss because to lose weight, you need to cut calories and sugar is easily cut without cutting nutrients. They're talking added sugars, not sugar in fruits. It's a nudge in the direction of "eat nutritious foods."
I don't agree with the "Only eat what you can pronounce" philosophy. I can pronounce a lot of things I don't want to eat. What if someone cannot pronounce "raspberry"? Raspberries don't become unhealthy because they can't pronounce it, KWIM?
That saying applies to the ingredients list. If you can't pronounce most of the ingredients AND you have no idea what it is, it is a good idea to avoid it. And I totally agree with this!
That's the most ludicrous idea ever.
Just educate yourself instead of avoiding things you don't know how to pronounce.
I hate when people say this. It's just so ignorant.
It is ignorant, but I think that's the point. Not everyone wants to spend hours of their life researching food additives and their safety. So they choose to just not eat them or eat less of them. It's really not a major hardship for many people to get most of their intake from whole foods.
I just ate a yogurt (plain, organic, milk from grassfed cows). The ingredients list out various "live and active cultures" that I am glad I don't have to read aloud, since I'd likely mispronounce them. Would it be sensible for me to stop eating this yogurt unless I have the desire to learn how to pronounce these words or what the differences are between the cultures identified? Is the yogurt healthier for someone with more knowledge of cultures than I have? Or should I limit myself to the yogurt I sometimes get from a local farm (although I think even their jar has similar information on it, but let's pretend not). Obviously the farm yogurt has similar difficult-to-pronounce cultures, but because they aren't identified, is the yogurt healthier?
None of that makes any sense at all to me.
On this one I'm with Kalikel.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »They advise it for weight loss because to lose weight, you need to cut calories and sugar is easily cut without cutting nutrients. They're talking added sugars, not sugar in fruits. It's a nudge in the direction of "eat nutritious foods."
I don't agree with the "Only eat what you can pronounce" philosophy. I can pronounce a lot of things I don't want to eat. What if someone cannot pronounce "raspberry"? Raspberries don't become unhealthy because they can't pronounce it, KWIM?
That saying applies to the ingredients list. If you can't pronounce most of the ingredients AND you have no idea what it is, it is a good idea to avoid it. And I totally agree with this!
I can't pronounce most of these words or what they are. So bananas are bad???...or any fruit for that matter.
These type of smart alleck answers alway annoy me. Depending on which dictionary you use, this list may or may not be a list of ingredients. But by the most common definition and the obvious one being used here, the chemical make-up of the banana is not what is meant by 'ingredient'.
If you were listing the ingredients for a banana smoothie, would you include that list? Or would list 'banana' as the ingredient?
It just shows how a little logic needs to be applied sometimes.0 -
Exactly! This is what I meant when I said it's not hard to understand what was meant by the person who first made the point.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »They advise it for weight loss because to lose weight, you need to cut calories and sugar is easily cut without cutting nutrients. They're talking added sugars, not sugar in fruits. It's a nudge in the direction of "eat nutritious foods."
I don't agree with the "Only eat what you can pronounce" philosophy. I can pronounce a lot of things I don't want to eat. What if someone cannot pronounce "raspberry"? Raspberries don't become unhealthy because they can't pronounce it, KWIM?
That saying applies to the ingredients list. If you can't pronounce most of the ingredients AND you have no idea what it is, it is a good idea to avoid it. And I totally agree with this!
I can't pronounce most of these words or what they are. So bananas are bad???...or any fruit for that matter.
These type of smart alleck answers alway annoy me. Depending on which dictionary you use, this list may or may not be a list of ingredients. But by the most common definition and the obvious one being used here, the chemical make-up of the banana is not what is meant by 'ingredient'.
If you were listing the ingredients for a banana smoothie, would you include that list? Or would list 'banana' as the ingredient?0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »They advise it for weight loss because to lose weight, you need to cut calories and sugar is easily cut without cutting nutrients. They're talking added sugars, not sugar in fruits. It's a nudge in the direction of "eat nutritious foods."
I don't agree with the "Only eat what you can pronounce" philosophy. I can pronounce a lot of things I don't want to eat. What if someone cannot pronounce "raspberry"? Raspberries don't become unhealthy because they can't pronounce it, KWIM?
That saying applies to the ingredients list. If you can't pronounce most of the ingredients AND you have no idea what it is, it is a good idea to avoid it. And I totally agree with this!
I can't pronounce most of these words or what they are. So bananas are bad???...or any fruit for that matter.
These type of smart alleck answers alway annoy me. Depending on which dictionary you use, this list may or may not be a list of ingredients. But by the most common definition and the obvious one being used here, the chemical make-up of the banana is not what is meant by 'ingredient'.
If you were listing the ingredients for a banana smoothie, would you include that list? Or would list 'banana' as the ingredient?
Good!!
Well it annoys me when people come on here and say don't eat foods, that have ingrediants you can't pronounce!!0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »They advise it for weight loss because to lose weight, you need to cut calories and sugar is easily cut without cutting nutrients. They're talking added sugars, not sugar in fruits. It's a nudge in the direction of "eat nutritious foods."
I don't agree with the "Only eat what you can pronounce" philosophy. I can pronounce a lot of things I don't want to eat. What if someone cannot pronounce "raspberry"? Raspberries don't become unhealthy because they can't pronounce it, KWIM?
That saying applies to the ingredients list. If you can't pronounce most of the ingredients AND you have no idea what it is, it is a good idea to avoid it. And I totally agree with this!
That's the most ludicrous idea ever.
Just educate yourself instead of avoiding things you don't know how to pronounce.
I hate when people say this. It's just so ignorant.
It is ignorant, but I think that's the point. Not everyone wants to spend hours of their life researching food additives and their safety. So they choose to just not eat them or eat less of them. It's really not a major hardship for many people to get most of their intake from whole foods.
I just ate a yogurt (plain, organic, milk from grassfed cows). The ingredients list out various "live and active cultures" that I am glad I don't have to read aloud, since I'd likely mispronounce them. Would it be sensible for me to stop eating this yogurt unless I have the desire to learn how to pronounce these words or what the differences are between the cultures identified? Is the yogurt healthier for someone with more knowledge of cultures than I have? Or should I limit myself to the yogurt I sometimes get from a local farm (although I think even their jar has similar information on it, but let's pretend not). Obviously the farm yogurt has similar difficult-to-pronounce cultures, but because they aren't identified, is the yogurt healthier?
None of that makes any sense at all to me.
On this one I'm with Kalikel.
You should eat whatever you want to eat for whatever reason you want. If you want to skip the yogurt because you can't pronounce the ingredients, then you should skip it. If you don't, then don't.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.2K 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
- 421 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
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions