Cutting sugar in diet
Replies
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Yep. EVERYONE should limit added sugars.herrspoons wrote: »I think everyone should limit added sugars. Limiting is, after all, the very essence of moderation.
Not sure why people find that one tricky.
But if you already limit added sugars it's silly to make that the main definition as to whether you are healthy.
Sorry? I'm not making the connection. Can you say more?
If you already eat a limited amount of added sugars (as I do) it's silly to claim that you would have a healthier diet by limiting added sugars more or by reducing the amount of added sugars you eat. That suggests that for everyone less is always better and none is the ideal, and I don't think that's true. There are better things to focus on depending on one's diet, like eating more veggies.
Did I say that you should limit them more to be healthy?
Yes, you said everyone should. That's what I was responding to. Not everyone eats tons of sugar, not everyone eats tons of processed food (as usually defined on these threads) or HFCS. That's why it makes more sense to give advice as to what's good to do, not assume that everyone is eating Twinkies 24/7 or getting all of their meals from McD's, which is IMO insulting.
MORE. I didn't say you should limit them more.
You limit them.
I limit them.
I believe everyone should limit added sugars to be healthy (note that there's no *more* in that sentence).
I believe it bears repeating that lots of foods we don't think have sugar, have sugar/HFCS. So when considering the new proposed guidelines 48 grams isn't very much, really.
FWIW, yes I believe it's brilliant to remind folks to build their diet around nutrient dense whole foods, and then, yes, add treats in around that.
I've never assumed everyone is eating twinkies 24/7 or eating all their meals from McDs. That IS insulting.
I do believe a lot of new dieters eat a lot of fast food and a lot of packaged convenience foods without fully considering what's in them. I certainly did.0 -
i seen this like over a year ago and do not have the link, sorry
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Yep. EVERYONE should limit added sugars.herrspoons wrote: »I think everyone should limit added sugars. Limiting is, after all, the very essence of moderation.
Not sure why people find that one tricky.
But if you already limit added sugars it's silly to make that the main definition as to whether you are healthy.
Sorry? I'm not making the connection. Can you say more?
If you already eat a limited amount of added sugars (as I do) it's silly to claim that you would have a healthier diet by limiting added sugars more or by reducing the amount of added sugars you eat. That suggests that for everyone less is always better and none is the ideal, and I don't think that's true. There are better things to focus on depending on one's diet, like eating more veggies.
Did I say that you should limit them more to be healthy?
Yes, you said everyone should. That's what I was responding to. Not everyone eats tons of sugar, not everyone eats tons of processed food (as usually defined on these threads) or HFCS. That's why it makes more sense to give advice as to what's good to do, not assume that everyone is eating Twinkies 24/7 or getting all of their meals from McD's, which is IMO insulting.
I took her to mean everyone should limit them in general, not more than they already were.
0 -
I was referring to this:Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
I think get it. Just because someone limits sugars does not mean they are necessarily healthy.lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Yep. EVERYONE should limit added sugars.herrspoons wrote: »I think everyone should limit added sugars. Limiting is, after all, the very essence of moderation.
Not sure why people find that one tricky.
But if you already limit added sugars it's silly to make that the main definition as to whether you are healthy.
i agree that limiting added sugars is a way to moderate, but so is limiting any food. For example, I don't need two servings of meat anymore than I need six teaspoons of sugar in my coffee, because I want overall balance. This has nothing to do with any foods being good or bad, it's just a method of trying to keep a calorie deficit if losing, or not going over TDEE when maintaining.
oh. Did someone say cutting sugar was the essence of being healthy? I must have missed that.
The government has now explicitly said to limit added sugar, for weight and for health. The WHO has said to limit added sugars for health. I can see why there are even more sugar threads than usual.
I think I went out on a limb.
The "government" is talking about moderation, which is in the eye of the beholder. We all make the choice what to moderate, as well as how to moderate.
I love my sugary stuff, have lost plenty of weight eating the sweet stuff, and have been maintaining for well over a year. The thing is I don't go hog wild every day like I used to, I just hog wild sometimes, but work hard to make sure my end week calories are reasonably close to what I need. It's not perfect, but it's doable.
Except the government is giving specific numbers on added sugar. Those numbers are much lower than the average american, and not in the eye of the beholder, actually. They are set recommendations.
I think it's also important to remember that this report isn't a weight loss report, per se, it's attempting to improve our health (while much of our health related concerns as a nation are weight related).
Isn't it the American Heart Association that provides these sugar guidelines? They are non-profit and funded by private institutions, I believe. They are not the government.
What's important to me is creating my own mode of moderation given the types of foods I like to eat. The American Heart Association providing specific numbers promotes moderation, no matter how small the numbers are and whether it's for health or weight loss. It may not be a moderation I that works for me, you, or anyone else, but we all get to choose how to moderate our own intake.
I said moderation is in the eye of the beholder, which is accurate, especially if you choose not to follow any guidelines.
http://www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015.asp
And yes, we all get to decide. And it's all within the larger context of our overall diet.0 -
MRM27 take a look here, just for 1 reference http://davidduke.com/?s=sugar+in+bread0
-
David Duke, seriously? Can we not send people to the website of a former Grand Wizard of the KKK.0
-
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
This?lemurcat12 wrote: »
I reread it. Then I looked at the report and searched it for plant based diet which came up with the (traditional) Mediterranean diet. Interesting.
That's interesting. I've always understood "plant based" as a trendy (and annoying) way of saying vegan, not Med diet.
I think DASH is in there and a third I cant remember but I read about those in a dietitician's (not MFP) overview of the report. Haven't read the whole report to see the other two mentioned there myself. The Mediterranean is not a bad place to start if you wanted direction to improve your diet (not you directly - general population "you").
Maybe the third was a vegan one.
Yes, I'd say the "healthy U.S.-style" would look quite like the (so-called "faddish" lol) Dash diet.These patterns are the Healthy U.S.- style Pattern, the Healthy Mediterranean-style Pattern, and the Healthy Vegetarian Pattern. These patterns include the components of a dietary pattern associated with health benefits.
Dietician's suggestion based on recommendations within report? I'd never heard of DASH until I read that.Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
I reread it. Then I looked at the report and searched it for plant based diet which came up with the (traditional) Mediterranean diet. Interesting.
That's interesting. I've always understood "plant based" as a trendy (and annoying) way of saying vegan, not Med diet.
There are two primary ways to understand "plant based". One is vegan (with an emphasis on plants rather than heavily processed non animal foods). I actually like that, because I know many ethical vegans who eat for sh1te.
The other is making plants the main course and bulk of you foods. Making animal protein a side dish.
Michael Pollan's "eat food, not too much, mostly plants" is how many (including myself) describe their plant based diet.
The new guidelines basically just go for mediterranean style (more fish than red meat) with a hint of South Beach (actively limiting added sugars).
Basically this:
That plate is just standard to me - even when I was MO I aimed for that in the name of health. I (naively perhaps) thought everyone understood that anyway once they took hold of their diet.lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
I reread it. Then I looked at the report and searched it for plant based diet which came up with the (traditional) Mediterranean diet. Interesting.
That's interesting. I've always understood "plant based" as a trendy (and annoying) way of saying vegan, not Med diet.
There are two primary ways to understand "plant based". One is vegan (with an emphasis on plants rather than heavily processed non animal foods). I actually like that, because I know many ethical vegans who eat for sh1te.
I don't like it, since the people I know who use it just use it as a euphemism for vegan. Vegan already has a meaning and so far I don't find that those who describe themselves as "plant based" eat better than vegans (to be honest the vegetarians I know often eat poorly, but all the vegans I know are quite health conscious). (I probably live--like you--in a part of the US with more vegetarians and vegans than average.)The other is making plants the main course and bulk of you foods. Making animal protein a side dish.
I'm all in favor of this, as you should know if you ever read my posts (and I think my diary supports it somewhat), but I have honestly NEVER heard anyone using "plant based" in that way, even in my Michael Pollan/green market/local produce obsessed subculture. Perhaps because, as mentioned above, the term has already been co-opted.
That said, apparently women in particular have trouble meeting protein goals and I'm always surprised that people have trouble with the relatively moderate MFP goal, so I'd probably still advise building a meal around protein. That doesn't mean the actual volume wouldn't be made up of mostly veggies, though. That's what I do--what made it easy to add lots of veggies to my diet (other than the fact I already liked them and was in the habit of eating them) was just decide that I'd cook as side dishes the veggies (2-3) that I had on hand to complement my main dish, rather than having to buy something specifically to go with them. This was especially helpful when I had a CSA box to use--I forced myself to cook endless greens in the spring--but it works even in the winter when I buy out of season veggies to have on hand.Michael Pollan's "eat food, not too much, mostly plants" is how many (including myself) describe their plant based diet.
I agree with this, but would never call it "plant-based" as people around here would assume I was claiming to be vegan (and people assume that you eat veggies, since responsible people do).The new guidelines basically just go for mediterranean style (more fish than red meat) with a hint of South Beach (actively limiting added sugars).
I wasn't talking about the new guidelines, but they seem reasonable enough to me, and even seem to be lightening up on the fat warnings, which is pleasant.
(My problem with DASH is just that using salt while cooking is normal and avoiding that seems to me to be unnecessary for most, especially if you don't eat a lot of processed foods (in the pre packaged, added sodium usage of the term). It plays into the idea that healthy eating and flavorful eating must be opponents, unlike Pollan who promotes the idea that healthful eating is also extremely tasty. But mostly I find named diets irritating. The Med diet isn't really a diet, is a descriptor of a way of eating, so I make an exception. But I'm on a soapbox about grains being over promoted by the US gov't already, so I have my disagreements even with it, although I think it's a fine way to eat if you enjoy it, just not the be-all, end-all of healthy eating. Amusingly, Leena and I might be somewhat on the same page here. But this is all a huge digression, of course.)
What made me dig into the report was the wording "plant-based". I initially read that as just more greens etc and wondered what they were "pushing" against to use the terminology. I didn't take it as specifically vegan because as Moi said I would have used the word vegan. I agree the usage can be problematic.
Just wanted to reiterate too that the DASH was what I saw in a Dietician's review not in the report. Perhaps it's her reference in order to help visualise what some of the recommendations in the report would like as a general diet.0 -
Traditional bread does not contain sugar. I am not aware that it contains more sugar than a coke but that is irrelevant as homemade bread has no added sugar.
Did a quick Google, (no research), and coke has 39grams and white bread has nearly 3grams per slice so a whole loaf possibly does have more added sugar than a can of coke. However, we only eat 2 slices, possible 4 for a man so let's say 6 or 12 grams and a can of coke and you have 45 to 51 grams in one meal.0 -
bread is loaded with sugar, actually is even worse than a can of coke i seen it in a research that was done ,
No. it's not. 2 slices of walmart white bread have 4 grams of added sugar.
I'd bet most bread is 1-3 grams per slice.
A can of coke has something like 39 grams.
What "research" are you referring to?0 -
Traditional bread does not contain sugar. I am not aware that it contains more sugar than a coke but that is irrelevant as homemade bread has no added sugar.
Did a quick Google, (no research), and coke has 39grams and white bread has nearly 3grams per slice so a whole loaf possibly does have more added sugar than a can of coke. However, we only eat 2 slices, possible 4 for a man so let's say 6 or 12 grams and a can of coke and you have 45 to 51 grams in one meal.
I don't make bread, but don't most folks ad a pinch of sugar to home made dough? A pinch mind you. Not several grams.0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
I was referring to this:Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
I think get it. Just because someone limits sugars does not mean they are necessarily healthy.lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Yep. EVERYONE should limit added sugars.herrspoons wrote: »I think everyone should limit added sugars. Limiting is, after all, the very essence of moderation.
Not sure why people find that one tricky.
But if you already limit added sugars it's silly to make that the main definition as to whether you are healthy.
i agree that limiting added sugars is a way to moderate, but so is limiting any food. For example, I don't need two servings of meat anymore than I need six teaspoons of sugar in my coffee, because I want overall balance. This has nothing to do with any foods being good or bad, it's just a method of trying to keep a calorie deficit if losing, or not going over TDEE when maintaining.
oh. Did someone say cutting sugar was the essence of being healthy? I must have missed that.
The government has now explicitly said to limit added sugar, for weight and for health. The WHO has said to limit added sugars for health. I can see why there are even more sugar threads than usual.
I think I went out on a limb.
The "government" is talking about moderation, which is in the eye of the beholder. We all make the choice what to moderate, as well as how to moderate.
I love my sugary stuff, have lost plenty of weight eating the sweet stuff, and have been maintaining for well over a year. The thing is I don't go hog wild every day like I used to, I just hog wild sometimes, but work hard to make sure my end week calories are reasonably close to what I need. It's not perfect, but it's doable.
Except the government is giving specific numbers on added sugar. Those numbers are much lower than the average american, and not in the eye of the beholder, actually. They are set recommendations.
I think it's also important to remember that this report isn't a weight loss report, per se, it's attempting to improve our health (while much of our health related concerns as a nation are weight related).
Isn't it the American Heart Association that provides these sugar guidelines? They are non-profit and funded by private institutions, I believe. They are not the government.
What's important to me is creating my own mode of moderation given the types of foods I like to eat. The American Heart Association providing specific numbers promotes moderation, no matter how small the numbers are and whether it's for health or weight loss. It may not be a moderation I that works for me, you, or anyone else, but we all get to choose how to moderate our own intake.
I said moderation is in the eye of the beholder, which is accurate, especially if you choose not to follow any guidelines.
http://www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015.asp
And yes, we all get to decide. And it's all within the larger context of our overall diet.
Ah, thanks for the clarification. You may have posted this before and I missed it.
0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
I was referring to this:Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
I think get it. Just because someone limits sugars does not mean they are necessarily healthy.lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Yep. EVERYONE should limit added sugars.herrspoons wrote: »I think everyone should limit added sugars. Limiting is, after all, the very essence of moderation.
Not sure why people find that one tricky.
But if you already limit added sugars it's silly to make that the main definition as to whether you are healthy.
i agree that limiting added sugars is a way to moderate, but so is limiting any food. For example, I don't need two servings of meat anymore than I need six teaspoons of sugar in my coffee, because I want overall balance. This has nothing to do with any foods being good or bad, it's just a method of trying to keep a calorie deficit if losing, or not going over TDEE when maintaining.
oh. Did someone say cutting sugar was the essence of being healthy? I must have missed that.
The government has now explicitly said to limit added sugar, for weight and for health. The WHO has said to limit added sugars for health. I can see why there are even more sugar threads than usual.
I think I went out on a limb.
The "government" is talking about moderation, which is in the eye of the beholder. We all make the choice what to moderate, as well as how to moderate.
I love my sugary stuff, have lost plenty of weight eating the sweet stuff, and have been maintaining for well over a year. The thing is I don't go hog wild every day like I used to, I just hog wild sometimes, but work hard to make sure my end week calories are reasonably close to what I need. It's not perfect, but it's doable.
Except the government is giving specific numbers on added sugar. Those numbers are much lower than the average american, and not in the eye of the beholder, actually. They are set recommendations.
I think it's also important to remember that this report isn't a weight loss report, per se, it's attempting to improve our health (while much of our health related concerns as a nation are weight related).
Isn't it the American Heart Association that provides these sugar guidelines? They are non-profit and funded by private institutions, I believe. They are not the government.
What's important to me is creating my own mode of moderation given the types of foods I like to eat. The American Heart Association providing specific numbers promotes moderation, no matter how small the numbers are and whether it's for health or weight loss. It may not be a moderation I that works for me, you, or anyone else, but we all get to choose how to moderate our own intake.
I said moderation is in the eye of the beholder, which is accurate, especially if you choose not to follow any guidelines.
http://www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015.asp
And yes, we all get to decide. And it's all within the larger context of our overall diet.
Ah, thanks for the clarification. You may have posted this before and I missed it.
I didn't, I don't think. But MFP had a blog about the new draft recommendations a couple of days ago, as did the NYT.
0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Traditional bread does not contain sugar. I am not aware that it contains more sugar than a coke but that is irrelevant as homemade bread has no added sugar.
Did a quick Google, (no research), and coke has 39grams and white bread has nearly 3grams per slice so a whole loaf possibly does have more added sugar than a can of coke. However, we only eat 2 slices, possible 4 for a man so let's say 6 or 12 grams and a can of coke and you have 45 to 51 grams in one meal.
I don't make bread, but don't most folks ad a pinch of sugar to home made dough? A pinch mind you. Not several grams.
It depends how patient you are with letting it rise. There are more patient folks among us (I do this when I make it for the family) who don't feed the yeast sugar and just let the dough have a long, cool rise. I think it develops better flavor that way.
0 -
herrspoons wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »
Ask me again when you have reached 60 and have gone through menopause, until then it would be difficult to compare our diets and exercise regime. But I will tell you, I have not had a day off work in over 20 years, have never had the flu, get the occasional sniffle and do not get vaccinated, have normal blood pressure and am on no medication whatsoever. I am 4 kilos heavier than I would like to be (vanity only as I am still in a healthy weight range) and the most I have ever weighed in my life is 65 kilos and that was the day I had my last child. I am one of those annoying people who eats like a pig and never puts on weight. I rarely eat processed food and try to stay away from added sugar. I eat dairy but do not eat wheat.
My purpose for being here is personal and involves a family member.
Now be honest and tell me your story.
It's going to be tricky for me to go through the menopause. Apart from that, fine. Recovering from weight put on after surgery, but been of superior aerobic health and strength all my life.
I'm confused though, Leena. Your membership of the Paleo group and posting on your sugar craving and wheat intolerances suggests that you're here for yourself. Also, your health is perfect... if you avoid wheat and sugar, otherwise it isn't? Still, those substantial exceptions aside, well done!
I think we both know why you're really here, Leena. Kidders are hard to kid after all.
Sorry to hear you have had surgery but I am assuming that you have been unable to exercise because of it. You are a young man who obviously enjoys heavy lifting and cardio and because of that you have "superior aerobic health and strength."
Now imagine if this became your normal style of life - not exercising. For many people, for many reasons such as illness, busy life, family commitments, injury, old age, indifference or in my case, an intense dislike of exercise, then what happens? Life may not always be eat what you like and then exercise it away.
As for me, I am intrigued as to why are you confused. "We both know why I am really here" you say. Enlighten me please, so why am I really here? - you obviously know more than me.
I'm interested in nutrition, love reading the stories of others and I'm here to help and support a family member, I'm interested in discovering why after 55 or so years I have developed a sugar and wheat intolerance. I would love to drop a few kilos and sustain it but am curious to know why CICO will not work for me long term as I can drop the weight but I keep losing and gaining the same few kilos - dare I say it but my body seems to have a "set point."
And yes I am here for support for the Paleo way of life which seems to best suit my body.
Anyway, my list is endless and undefined in my own mind but apparently you have it worked out. So please enlighten me about my "true motives."0 -
This content has been removed.
-
herrspoons wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »
Ask me again when you have reached 60 and have gone through menopause, until then it would be difficult to compare our diets and exercise regime. But I will tell you, I have not had a day off work in over 20 years, have never had the flu, get the occasional sniffle and do not get vaccinated, have normal blood pressure and am on no medication whatsoever. I am 4 kilos heavier than I would like to be (vanity only as I am still in a healthy weight range) and the most I have ever weighed in my life is 65 kilos and that was the day I had my last child. I am one of those annoying people who eats like a pig and never puts on weight. I rarely eat processed food and try to stay away from added sugar. I eat dairy but do not eat wheat.
My purpose for being here is personal and involves a family member.
Now be honest and tell me your story.
It's going to be tricky for me to go through the menopause. Apart from that, fine. Recovering from weight put on after surgery, but been of superior aerobic health and strength all my life.
I'm confused though, Leena. Your membership of the Paleo group and posting on your sugar craving and wheat intolerances suggests that you're here for yourself. Also, your health is perfect... if you avoid wheat and sugar, otherwise it isn't? Still, those substantial exceptions aside, well done!
I think we both know why you're really here, Leena. Kidders are hard to kid after all.
Sorry to hear you have had surgery but I am assuming that you have been unable to exercise because of it. You are a young man who obviously enjoys heavy lifting and cardio and because of that you have "superior aerobic health and strength."
Now imagine if this became your normal style of life - not exercising. For many people, for many reasons such as illness, busy life, family commitments, injury, old age, indifference or in my case, an intense dislike of exercise, then what happens? Life may not always be eat what you like and then exercise it away.
As for me, I am intrigued as to why are you confused. "We both know why I am really here" you say. Enlighten me please, so why am I really here? - you obviously know more than me.
I'm interested in nutrition, love reading the stories of others and I'm here to help and support a family member, I'm interested in discovering why after 55 or so years I have developed a sugar and wheat intolerance. I would love to drop a few kilos and sustain it but am curious to know why CICO will not work for me long term as I can drop the weight but I keep losing and gaining the same few kilos - dare I say it but my body seems to have a "set point."
And yes I am here for support for the Paleo way of life which seems to best suit my body.
Anyway, my list is endless and undefined in my own mind but apparently you have it worked out. So please enlighten me about my "true motives."
Like most of us Leena, you didn't realise it was a minefield you were walking into. 0 -
I eat plain low fat yogurt, the sugars in it (about 18 g per serving) are lactose, so I don't worry about it, anymore than I worry about the fructose in my fruit. So to sum it up, If you buy PLAIN low fat yogurt, there is NO added sugar, there is natural milk sugar, lactose, as there is in any milk product unless it has been removed.RegentPrimrose wrote: »RegentPrimrose wrote: »Avoid granola and low-fat yogurt. These products usually have heaps of added sugar. Natural sugar and refined added sugar are two completely different things. I don't worry about natural sugar in fruit.
You need to cut out products with added sugar - which encompasses most processed foods. Stick to natural, raw, unprocessed foods - like fruit, vegetables, eggs, nuts, lean meats etc.
LOL no …
yogurt is bad now, really???
an apple has as much sugar as a serving of yogurt….oh wait the apple sugar is better, because natural, right?
It depends on what type of yogurt. Typically these so-called low fat yogurts contain added sugar to add flavour to compensate for the fat taken out. I never said yogurt is bad for you. It can be good for you - as long as it is natural and not flavoured or otherwise tampered with unnecessarily. Good luck.
Ummm yea no ...
0 -
Ahh there you go. I've seen people do it, but again, I don't make bread. thanksmamapeach910 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Traditional bread does not contain sugar. I am not aware that it contains more sugar than a coke but that is irrelevant as homemade bread has no added sugar.
Did a quick Google, (no research), and coke has 39grams and white bread has nearly 3grams per slice so a whole loaf possibly does have more added sugar than a can of coke. However, we only eat 2 slices, possible 4 for a man so let's say 6 or 12 grams and a can of coke and you have 45 to 51 grams in one meal.
I don't make bread, but don't most folks ad a pinch of sugar to home made dough? A pinch mind you. Not several grams.
It depends how patient you are with letting it rise. There are more patient folks among us (I do this when I make it for the family) who don't feed the yeast sugar and just let the dough have a long, cool rise. I think it develops better flavor that way.
0 -
MRM27 take a look here, just for 1 reference http://davidduke.com/?s=sugar+in+bread
Ummmmmm, yeah, sorry. Not going to be visiting any David Duke websites. You're going to have to come up with something better than that. Even though I know you won't. Maybe a whole loaf of bread has more sugar than a can of coke but like someone already said, I don't eat bread by the loads.
Agreed.0 -
i seen this like over a year ago and do not have the link, sorry
This may be what you're referring to, though I would take it with a grain of...er...salt.
http://quittingsugar.com/2012/07/11/bread-and-coke-smackdown-a-blood-sugar-experiment/
0 -
MrM27, this is becoming a habit I am not happy with. I agree with you AGAIN!!
0 -
herrspoons wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »
Ask me again when you have reached 60 and have gone through menopause, until then it would be difficult to compare our diets and exercise regime. But I will tell you, I have not had a day off work in over 20 years, have never had the flu, get the occasional sniffle and do not get vaccinated, have normal blood pressure and am on no medication whatsoever. I am 4 kilos heavier than I would like to be (vanity only as I am still in a healthy weight range) and the most I have ever weighed in my life is 65 kilos and that was the day I had my last child. I am one of those annoying people who eats like a pig and never puts on weight. I rarely eat processed food and try to stay away from added sugar. I eat dairy but do not eat wheat.
My purpose for being here is personal and involves a family member.
Now be honest and tell me your story.
It's going to be tricky for me to go through the menopause. Apart from that, fine. Recovering from weight put on after surgery, but been of superior aerobic health and strength all my life.
I'm confused though, Leena. Your membership of the Paleo group and posting on your sugar craving and wheat intolerances suggests that you're here for yourself. Also, your health is perfect... if you avoid wheat and sugar, otherwise it isn't? Still, those substantial exceptions aside, well done!
I think we both know why you're really here, Leena. Kidders are hard to kid after all.
Sorry to hear you have had surgery but I am assuming that you have been unable to exercise because of it. You are a young man who obviously enjoys heavy lifting and cardio and because of that you have "superior aerobic health and strength."
Now imagine if this became your normal style of life - not exercising. For many people, for many reasons such as illness, busy life, family commitments, injury, old age, indifference or in my case, an intense dislike of exercise, then what happens? Life may not always be eat what you like and then exercise it away.
As for me, I am intrigued as to why are you confused. "We both know why I am really here" you say. Enlighten me please, so why am I really here? - you obviously know more than me.
I'm interested in nutrition, love reading the stories of others and I'm here to help and support a family member, I'm interested in discovering why after 55 or so years I have developed a sugar and wheat intolerance. I would love to drop a few kilos and sustain it but am curious to know why CICO will not work for me long term as I can drop the weight but I keep losing and gaining the same few kilos - dare I say it but my body seems to have a "set point."
And yes I am here for support for the Paleo way of life which seems to best suit my body.
Anyway, my list is endless and undefined in my own mind but apparently you have it worked out. So please enlighten me about my "true motives."
Like most of us Leena, you didn't realise it was a minefield you were walking into.
Anything with word "sugar" in the title inevitably turns into a minefield
0 -
The fact that so many people are so passionate about the topic shows how important the issue is and it needs to be discussed without too many casualties. So like most of us, I am tiptoeing through that minefield and holding my breath waiting to be blown to pieces. lol0
-
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »meljimenez777 wrote: »My fitness expert Doctor told me to cut down on sugar for my health and help me lose weight. 50 grams a day. I'm starting today
Given the newly minted guidelines that suggest no more than 12 teaspoons of added sugar (added being the important word), that sounds about right.
12 teaspoons to me sounds like an awful lot.
It's about 1 soda a day. It's much more than I have.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
In the interest of balance, please read this:
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/
Foods should not be demonised. Sugar is just sugar. In moderation it's fine. If you need energy really quickly it's brilliant.
Hey herrspoons! thanks for this, it was a super interesting read, and i cant help but agree with all of his points. I wasn't saying that the videos i posted were gospel by any means! I've only just recently started looking into anti sugar studies though so I welcome any more additional references you might have! Agree whole heartedly with your statement "in moderation its fine" too.... which is why i stated "added sugars have been shown to be bad for your health if eaten in excess".... although of course, you could say this about any food in the entire world.0 -
Not a chance!!
0 -
Sarcasm.
I am reading a lot of mis-information.
I read someone telling another to avoid "ALL" sugars.
My point, is our bodies run on sugar, i.e., glycogen and the glycogen stores in muscles.
Some throw out A LOT of mumbo, jumbo, "Oh, I read this, I read that,..." and for new folks,
it can be very confusing.
7 years ago, I made a lifestyle change. 3 years of P90X, Insanity and Myfitnesspal.com.
I am 52 years young, have taken classes on physiology, sports exercise, nutrition and I still find it daunting to get it all straight.
I am in excellent to superior physical condition according to my numbers and still fight little areas.
I think to be helpful to those starting out, clarification, and ease on what works for one might not work for the other, proper terminology for those new...?
Don't know? Just read some really strange and frankly bad info...
Just my 2 pennies.
0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
I think get it. Just because someone limits sugars does not mean they are necessarily healthy.lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Yep. EVERYONE should limit added sugars.herrspoons wrote: »I think everyone should limit added sugars. Limiting is, after all, the very essence of moderation.
Not sure why people find that one tricky.
But if you already limit added sugars it's silly to make that the main definition as to whether you are healthy.
i agree that limiting added sugars is a way to moderate, but so is limiting any food. For example, I don't need two servings of meat anymore than I need six teaspoons of sugar in my coffee, because I want overall balance. This has nothing to do with any foods being good or bad, it's just a method of trying to keep a calorie deficit if losing, or not going over TDEE when maintaining.
oh. Did someone say cutting sugar was the essence of being healthy? I must have missed that.
The government has now explicitly said to limit added sugar, for weight and for health. The WHO has said to limit added sugars for health. I can see why there are even more sugar threads than usual.
I think I went out on a limb.
The "government" is talking about moderation, which is in the eye of the beholder. We all make the choice what to moderate, as well as how to moderate.
I love my sugary stuff, have lost plenty of weight eating the sweet stuff, and have been maintaining for well over a year. The thing is I don't go hog wild every day like I used to, I just hog wild sometimes, but work hard to make sure my end week calories are reasonably close to what I need. It's not perfect, but it's doable.
I would wager that 99% of the government is overweight...
Don't let them guide you
I'd assume that "government" here is a metonymy of sorts. I'd assume they mean the folks on the government panel who've been studying mountains of data. I'll google a few, but I'm figuring 99% of that panel isn't overweight.
I figure 99% don't know what the hell they are talking about.
Beside the world is going to end any day now because of global warming...
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
- 427 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