Cutting sugar in diet
Options
Replies
-
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 -
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 -
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?
The typical American sure needs to. You probably don't need to. I don't need to.
Should we aim for "no added sugars?" Possibly, but probably not. Granted, I'd say we should aim for more honey and juice as our sweeteners, less HFCS. But as we know, I have a bias there: I think HFCS bad for us.
I already avoid HFCS, so again one-size-fits-all advice wouldn't work. Which is all I was saying.
I'd like to focus on what eating a good, nutritious diet requires, and not feed into weird scapegoating about eliminating foods. If one eats a good nutritious diet, one is not going to be eating excessive amounts of sugar, and if you read the WHO rationale about limiting sugar (which is quite sensible) its generally about making sure that you get a good balanced diet and not excessive calories. That's why it's a shame that the weird sugar fear that people get instead causes them to worry about eating fruit and dairy, which aren't even included in the WHO's added sugar limit, of course.
HFCS, I love this CRAP!
In everything.
Read your labels and you will barf.
Thank God for corn growers...
The molecular structure close to that of alcohol and the liver doesn't process it like sugar, real sugar that is...
Bad MOJO.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...
All those stupid scientists trying to act like they understand science...
(97% agree on global warming. It's a thing.)
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...
All those stupid scientists trying to act like they understand science...
(97% agree on global warming. It's a thing.)
But snow. No really, a congressman apparently actually tried that argument (complete with snowball for proof)...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...
All those stupid scientists trying to act like they understand science...
(97% agree on global warming. It's a thing.)
yea, like all those 'scientists' who got caught fudging the numbers on global warming...
and I would really love an actual citation on that 97% number....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...
All those stupid scientists trying to act like they understand science...
(97% agree on global warming. It's a thing.)
But snow. No really, a congressman apparently actually tried that argument (complete with snowball for proof)...
I saw that, I was lmao!! That look he gave when he tossed the snowball to the chairman, like oh snap, lol
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...
All those stupid scientists trying to act like they understand science...
(97% agree on global warming. It's a thing.)
yea, like all those 'scientists' who got caught fudging the numbers on global warming...
and I would really love an actual citation on that 97% number....
Dude, look it up. I'm not even having this debate, it is settled science. There is no real debate within the scientific community.
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...
All those stupid scientists trying to act like they understand science...
(97% agree on global warming. It's a thing.)
yea, like all those 'scientists' who got caught fudging the numbers on global warming...
and I would really love an actual citation on that 97% number....
Dude, look it up. I'm not even having this debate, it is settled science. There is no real debate within the scientific community.
LOL OK ...
your the one making the 97% claim not me...
and if it is so settled then why did they have to fake numbers to prove their point...?
when ever someone says "it is settled" that just means that they have no additional information to contribute.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...
All those stupid scientists trying to act like they understand science...
(97% agree on global warming. It's a thing.)
yea, like all those 'scientists' who got caught fudging the numbers on global warming...
and I would really love an actual citation on that 97% number....
Dude, look it up. I'm not even having this debate, it is settled science. There is no real debate within the scientific community.
LOL OK ...
your the one making the 97% claim not me...
and if it is so settled then why did they have to fake numbers to prove their point...?
when ever someone says "it is settled" that just means that they have no additional information to contribute.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
0 -
herrspoons wrote: »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...
All those stupid scientists trying to act like they understand science...
(97% agree on global warming. It's a thing.)
yea, like all those 'scientists' who got caught fudging the numbers on global warming...
and I would really love an actual citation on that 97% number....
Dude, look it up. I'm not even having this debate, it is settled science. There is no real debate within the scientific community.
Climate change is a reality. What we need to understand us how much of it is human mediated, and what the likely impact will be.
well, I agree with natural warming and cooling cycles....
I don't agree with all the carbon demonizing...
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...
All those stupid scientists trying to act like they understand science...
(97% agree on global warming. It's a thing.)
yea, like all those 'scientists' who got caught fudging the numbers on global warming...
and I would really love an actual citation on that 97% number....
Dude, look it up. I'm not even having this debate, it is settled science. There is no real debate within the scientific community.
LOL OK ...
your the one making the 97% claim not me...
and if it is so settled then why did they have to fake numbers to prove their point...?
when ever someone says "it is settled" that just means that they have no additional information to contribute.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
I love how it says "very likely" ....0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 401 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 992 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions