Always over sugar!
Options
Replies
-
Nope. Didn't say that.Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Like said, sugar is unimportant for weight loss. Unless medically required, there is no need to even monitor sugar intake. Chances are that with a varied diet, your sugar intake (both natural and added, because.... sugar is sugar) will balance out just fine.
Not according to MANY health professionals, and health organizations.
and MANY on the other side so those are full of BS ….
so are you saying that sugar consumption will hamper weight loss in a calorie deficit?
0 -
kitkatbird wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Like said, sugar is unimportant for weight loss. Unless medically required, there is no need to even monitor sugar intake. Chances are that with a varied diet, your sugar intake (both natural and added, because.... sugar is sugar) will balance out just fine.
Not according to MANY health professionals, and health organizations.
and MANY on the other side so those are full of BS ….
so are you saying that sugar consumption will hamper weight loss in a calorie deficit?
No she is saying it won't hamper weight loss but that doesn't mean it won't hurt your health. If I ate a calorie deficit where my diet was all sweets I'd lose weight but I would be skyrocketing my chances for developing diabetes and other health problems. My insulin levels would be so high all the time that my blood cells would become immune to it thus my blood sugar levels would remain high.
and there is the straw man argument…that train is never late…
No one in this thread advocated a diet of ALL sweets. What people are saying is that you can eat sugar in moderate amounts, be in a deficit, hit your calories/micros/macros, and you will lose weight and be healthy.
60 to 100 grams of sugar a day is hardly a diet of ALL sweets….that is what my sugar looks like and I am not any where near 100% all sugar consumption …my diary is open by the way ..
this may be the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard...
To be clear: I never said "all sweets".
What ana said was: don't worry about or even watch sugar intake. I disagree. FOR OVER ALL HEALTH reasons. Not a little number on a scale.0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Nope. Didn't say that.Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Like said, sugar is unimportant for weight loss. Unless medically required, there is no need to even monitor sugar intake. Chances are that with a varied diet, your sugar intake (both natural and added, because.... sugar is sugar) will balance out just fine.
Not according to MANY health professionals, and health organizations.
and MANY on the other side so those are full of BS ….
so are you saying that sugar consumption will hamper weight loss in a calorie deficit?
so you have no point…got ya0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »kitkatbird wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Like said, sugar is unimportant for weight loss. Unless medically required, there is no need to even monitor sugar intake. Chances are that with a varied diet, your sugar intake (both natural and added, because.... sugar is sugar) will balance out just fine.
Not according to MANY health professionals, and health organizations.
and MANY on the other side so those are full of BS ….
so are you saying that sugar consumption will hamper weight loss in a calorie deficit?
No she is saying it won't hamper weight loss but that doesn't mean it won't hurt your health. If I ate a calorie deficit where my diet was all sweets I'd lose weight but I would be skyrocketing my chances for developing diabetes and other health problems. My insulin levels would be so high all the time that my blood cells would become immune to it thus my blood sugar levels would remain high.
and there is the straw man argument…that train is never late…
No one in this thread advocated a diet of ALL sweets. What people are saying is that you can eat sugar in moderate amounts, be in a deficit, hit your calories/micros/macros, and you will lose weight and be healthy.
60 to 100 grams of sugar a day is hardly a diet of ALL sweets….that is what my sugar looks like and I am not any where near 100% all sugar consumption …my diary is open by the way ..
this may be the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard...
To be clear: I never said "all sweets".
What ana said was: don't worry about or even watch sugar intake. I disagree. FOR OVER ALL HEALTH reasons. Not a little number on a scale.
i was replying to the previous poster that said a diet of ALL sweets would be bad…which no one had advocated….0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Nope. Didn't say that.Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Like said, sugar is unimportant for weight loss. Unless medically required, there is no need to even monitor sugar intake. Chances are that with a varied diet, your sugar intake (both natural and added, because.... sugar is sugar) will balance out just fine.
Not according to MANY health professionals, and health organizations.
and MANY on the other side so those are full of BS ….
so are you saying that sugar consumption will hamper weight loss in a calorie deficit?
so you have no point…got ya
You really need to work on the reading comprehension there.0 -
The key is what you are calling "moderate" amounts. The World Health Association and the American Heart Association both recommend not eating more than 25 grams in added sugar a day. So if that is what you call moderate, then I agree.kitkatbird wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Like said, sugar is unimportant for weight loss. Unless medically required, there is no need to even monitor sugar intake. Chances are that with a varied diet, your sugar intake (both natural and added, because.... sugar is sugar) will balance out just fine.
Not according to MANY health professionals, and health organizations.
and MANY on the other side so those are full of BS ….
so are you saying that sugar consumption will hamper weight loss in a calorie deficit?
No she is saying it won't hamper weight loss but that doesn't mean it won't hurt your health. If I ate a calorie deficit where my diet was all sweets I'd lose weight but I would be skyrocketing my chances for developing diabetes and other health problems. My insulin levels would be so high all the time that my blood cells would become immune to it thus my blood sugar levels would remain high.
and there is the straw man argument…that train is never late…
No one in this thread advocated a diet of ALL sweets. What people are saying is that you can eat sugar in moderate amounts, be in a deficit, hit your calories/micros/macros, and you will lose weight and be healthy.
60 to 100 grams of sugar a day is hardly a diet of ALL sweets….that is what my sugar looks like and I am not any where near 100% all sugar consumption …my diary is open by the way ..
this may be the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard...
But keep in mind the average bottle of soda has over 40 grams.
Can you eat more sugar than that and lose weight? Yes. Absolutely.
Can you eat more sugar than that and not run a higher risk of other health complications down the road? Well the major medical organizations say no.
ETA: The "sugar" number that mfp tracks includes not just added sugar in soda, sweets, etc...it also includes naturally occuring sugar in fruits, vegetables, dairy, etc. So that number is not the number to look at if you are comparing your consumption to major medical association guidance.
0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Nope. Didn't say that.Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Like said, sugar is unimportant for weight loss. Unless medically required, there is no need to even monitor sugar intake. Chances are that with a varied diet, your sugar intake (both natural and added, because.... sugar is sugar) will balance out just fine.
Not according to MANY health professionals, and health organizations.
and MANY on the other side so those are full of BS ….
so are you saying that sugar consumption will hamper weight loss in a calorie deficit?
so you have no point…got ya
You really need to work on the reading comprehension there.
Okie dokie…considering you always mis-quote people, you may want to take your own advice….0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »kitkatbird wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Like said, sugar is unimportant for weight loss. Unless medically required, there is no need to even monitor sugar intake. Chances are that with a varied diet, your sugar intake (both natural and added, because.... sugar is sugar) will balance out just fine.
Not according to MANY health professionals, and health organizations.
and MANY on the other side so those are full of BS ….
so are you saying that sugar consumption will hamper weight loss in a calorie deficit?
No she is saying it won't hamper weight loss but that doesn't mean it won't hurt your health. If I ate a calorie deficit where my diet was all sweets I'd lose weight but I would be skyrocketing my chances for developing diabetes and other health problems. My insulin levels would be so high all the time that my blood cells would become immune to it thus my blood sugar levels would remain high.
and there is the straw man argument…that train is never late…
No one in this thread advocated a diet of ALL sweets. What people are saying is that you can eat sugar in moderate amounts, be in a deficit, hit your calories/micros/macros, and you will lose weight and be healthy.
60 to 100 grams of sugar a day is hardly a diet of ALL sweets….that is what my sugar looks like and I am not any where near 100% all sugar consumption …my diary is open by the way ..
this may be the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard...
To be clear: I never said "all sweets".
What ana said was: don't worry about or even watch sugar intake. I disagree. FOR OVER ALL HEALTH reasons. Not a little number on a scale.
i was replying to the previous poster that said a diet of ALL sweets would be bad…which no one had advocated….
I understand that. I was clarifying, as I was the one being "explained".
Meanwhile: because she's only focused on a number on the scale, ana is misguided when she routinely tells people they don't need to watch their added sugars because naturally their diet will take care of things. It's foolish to think that, and foolish to tell people that.
0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »kitkatbird wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Like said, sugar is unimportant for weight loss. Unless medically required, there is no need to even monitor sugar intake. Chances are that with a varied diet, your sugar intake (both natural and added, because.... sugar is sugar) will balance out just fine.
Not according to MANY health professionals, and health organizations.
and MANY on the other side so those are full of BS ….
so are you saying that sugar consumption will hamper weight loss in a calorie deficit?
No she is saying it won't hamper weight loss but that doesn't mean it won't hurt your health. If I ate a calorie deficit where my diet was all sweets I'd lose weight but I would be skyrocketing my chances for developing diabetes and other health problems. My insulin levels would be so high all the time that my blood cells would become immune to it thus my blood sugar levels would remain high.
and there is the straw man argument…that train is never late…
No one in this thread advocated a diet of ALL sweets. What people are saying is that you can eat sugar in moderate amounts, be in a deficit, hit your calories/micros/macros, and you will lose weight and be healthy.
60 to 100 grams of sugar a day is hardly a diet of ALL sweets….that is what my sugar looks like and I am not any where near 100% all sugar consumption …my diary is open by the way ..
this may be the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard...
To be clear: I never said "all sweets".
What ana said was: don't worry about or even watch sugar intake. I disagree. FOR OVER ALL HEALTH reasons. Not a little number on a scale.
i was replying to the previous poster that said a diet of ALL sweets would be bad…which no one had advocated….
I understand that. I was clarifying, as I was the one being "explained".
Meanwhile: because she's only focused on a number on the scale, ana is misguided when she routinely tells people they don't need to watch their added sugars because naturally their diet will take care of things. It's foolish to think that, and foolish to tell people that.
why would it be foolish?
As long as they hit their calorie/macro/micros for the day everything else will fall in line regardless of "added" sugar….0 -
kitkatbird wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Like said, sugar is unimportant for weight loss. Unless medically required, there is no need to even monitor sugar intake. Chances are that with a varied diet, your sugar intake (both natural and added, because.... sugar is sugar) will balance out just fine.
Not according to MANY health professionals, and health organizations.
and MANY on the other side so those are full of BS ….
so are you saying that sugar consumption will hamper weight loss in a calorie deficit?
No she is saying it won't hamper weight loss but that doesn't mean it won't hurt your health. If I ate a calorie deficit where my diet was all sweets I'd lose weight but I would be skyrocketing my chances for developing diabetes and other health problems. My insulin levels would be so high all the time that my blood cells would become immune to it thus my blood sugar levels would remain high.
Yeah but.. who would eat ONLY a diet of sweets?
Who started this strawman?\
Why do people keep pushing this?0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »kitkatbird wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Like said, sugar is unimportant for weight loss. Unless medically required, there is no need to even monitor sugar intake. Chances are that with a varied diet, your sugar intake (both natural and added, because.... sugar is sugar) will balance out just fine.
Not according to MANY health professionals, and health organizations.
and MANY on the other side so those are full of BS ….
so are you saying that sugar consumption will hamper weight loss in a calorie deficit?
No she is saying it won't hamper weight loss but that doesn't mean it won't hurt your health. If I ate a calorie deficit where my diet was all sweets I'd lose weight but I would be skyrocketing my chances for developing diabetes and other health problems. My insulin levels would be so high all the time that my blood cells would become immune to it thus my blood sugar levels would remain high.
and there is the straw man argument…that train is never late…
No one in this thread advocated a diet of ALL sweets. What people are saying is that you can eat sugar in moderate amounts, be in a deficit, hit your calories/micros/macros, and you will lose weight and be healthy.
60 to 100 grams of sugar a day is hardly a diet of ALL sweets….that is what my sugar looks like and I am not any where near 100% all sugar consumption …my diary is open by the way ..
this may be the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard...
To be clear: I never said "all sweets".
What ana said was: don't worry about or even watch sugar intake. I disagree. FOR OVER ALL HEALTH reasons. Not a little number on a scale.
i was replying to the previous poster that said a diet of ALL sweets would be bad…which no one had advocated….
I understand that. I was clarifying, as I was the one being "explained".
Meanwhile: because she's only focused on a number on the scale, ana is misguided when she routinely tells people they don't need to watch their added sugars because naturally their diet will take care of things. It's foolish to think that, and foolish to tell people that.
why would it be foolish?
As long as they hit their calorie/macro/micros for the day everything else will fall in line regardless of "added" sugar….
ANA didn't mention micros. And how does one know they've hit all their micros?
ANA has repeatedly said she only really tracks protein. In fact, most IIFYM folks only ever talk about protein. Protein plus "whatever you want to eat under your calorie goal" does not suggest that all ones micros will be met, nor does it suggest they won't be over eating added sugars, of course.
(granted I don't think ANA really eats whatever she wants, she likes feeling that she can, which is probably what works for her)0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »kitkatbird wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Like said, sugar is unimportant for weight loss. Unless medically required, there is no need to even monitor sugar intake. Chances are that with a varied diet, your sugar intake (both natural and added, because.... sugar is sugar) will balance out just fine.
Not according to MANY health professionals, and health organizations.
and MANY on the other side so those are full of BS ….
so are you saying that sugar consumption will hamper weight loss in a calorie deficit?
No she is saying it won't hamper weight loss but that doesn't mean it won't hurt your health. If I ate a calorie deficit where my diet was all sweets I'd lose weight but I would be skyrocketing my chances for developing diabetes and other health problems. My insulin levels would be so high all the time that my blood cells would become immune to it thus my blood sugar levels would remain high.
and there is the straw man argument…that train is never late…
No one in this thread advocated a diet of ALL sweets. What people are saying is that you can eat sugar in moderate amounts, be in a deficit, hit your calories/micros/macros, and you will lose weight and be healthy.
60 to 100 grams of sugar a day is hardly a diet of ALL sweets….that is what my sugar looks like and I am not any where near 100% all sugar consumption …my diary is open by the way ..
this may be the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard...
To be clear: I never said "all sweets".
What ana said was: don't worry about or even watch sugar intake. I disagree. FOR OVER ALL HEALTH reasons. Not a little number on a scale.
i was replying to the previous poster that said a diet of ALL sweets would be bad…which no one had advocated….
I understand that. I was clarifying, as I was the one being "explained".
Meanwhile: because she's only focused on a number on the scale, ana is misguided when she routinely tells people they don't need to watch their added sugars because naturally their diet will take care of things. It's foolish to think that, and foolish to tell people that.
a) many people here are only concerned about sugar because they think it will hamper their weight-loss goals/results. So telling them that they do not need to worry about it = less stress/pressure = easier logging experience = more likely to stick to goals.
b) "Chances are that with a varied diet, your sugar intake (both natural and added, because.... sugar is sugar) will balance out just fine. " Which is what I said above, and you seemed to have ignored. Eating a varied diet means that one's overall sugar intake is unlikely to be so high that it causes health problems. You can compare this to one's sodium or fiber intake. My sodium and fiber fluctuate tremendously. I do not try to meet either of them and only track them to help me monitor trends, meaning that I will easily go way over or way under. This is with eating a variety of food, which includes calorie-dense "bad" food, and I've even surpassed my fiber goal by eating these foods. My sodium goal is set lower than it likely needs to be (1500) because for a while I was having issues making myself drink enough water, so I had to set my goal low so I could monitor how much sodium would cause headaches and water retention. I'm now getting in at least 64oz of water, more on high sodium and work out days, and I've not had any issues exceeding my sodium goal and losing weight. Had unexpected Swiss Chalet dinner last night which made my sodium super high, so I made myself chug an extra 32oz of water before bed because the excess sodium gave me a headache and I was getting sodium fingers (when my fingers start getting hot, stiff, and swollen from excess sodium and not enough water). The extra water helped mitigate these issues and I woke up 0.2lbs lighter than I was yesterday.
So you can see that my varied diet, which includes the "bad" food and of course all the "good" food, still allows me to, on average, stay under a reasonable sodium intake goal (2300mg) AND to meet or exceed my fiber goals (25g). Since I do not add sugar information to my private food database, I do not have a sugar graph but I'm assuming that it would form the same type of pattern.
A lot of people seem to enjoy ignoring the concept of context and variety when arguing about how bad added sugar is and how it should be avoided like the plague.
0 -
The average American...including many actively trying to lose weight...does eat a "varied diet" and still eats way too much sugar based on medical guidelines. So just eating a varied diet does not mean overall sugar intake will be low enough to not cause health problems. Your diet may...I have no idea what you are eating and really don't care. But everybody in the world does not eat exactly what you do.
b) "Chances are that with a varied diet, your sugar intake (both natural and added, because.... sugar is sugar) will balance out just fine. " Which is what I said above, and you seemed to have ignored. Eating a varied diet means that one's overall sugar intake is unlikely to be so high that it causes health problems.Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »kitkatbird wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Like said, sugar is unimportant for weight loss. Unless medically required, there is no need to even monitor sugar intake. Chances are that with a varied diet, your sugar intake (both natural and added, because.... sugar is sugar) will balance out just fine.
Not according to MANY health professionals, and health organizations.
and MANY on the other side so those are full of BS ….
so are you saying that sugar consumption will hamper weight loss in a calorie deficit?
No she is saying it won't hamper weight loss but that doesn't mean it won't hurt your health. If I ate a calorie deficit where my diet was all sweets I'd lose weight but I would be skyrocketing my chances for developing diabetes and other health problems. My insulin levels would be so high all the time that my blood cells would become immune to it thus my blood sugar levels would remain high.
and there is the straw man argument…that train is never late…
No one in this thread advocated a diet of ALL sweets. What people are saying is that you can eat sugar in moderate amounts, be in a deficit, hit your calories/micros/macros, and you will lose weight and be healthy.
60 to 100 grams of sugar a day is hardly a diet of ALL sweets….that is what my sugar looks like and I am not any where near 100% all sugar consumption …my diary is open by the way ..
this may be the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard...
To be clear: I never said "all sweets".
What ana said was: don't worry about or even watch sugar intake. I disagree. FOR OVER ALL HEALTH reasons. Not a little number on a scale.
i was replying to the previous poster that said a diet of ALL sweets would be bad…which no one had advocated….
I understand that. I was clarifying, as I was the one being "explained".
Meanwhile: because she's only focused on a number on the scale, ana is misguided when she routinely tells people they don't need to watch their added sugars because naturally their diet will take care of things. It's foolish to think that, and foolish to tell people that.
Most people are eating too much sugar...whether at a healthy weight or not. That's why the major medical organizations are beginning to focus more intensely on sugar consumption.
0 -
Average 20-40 yr old Americans get about 45% of their carbs from sugars which is about 22% of their calories. The "added sugar" component of this is about 2/3, mostly from beverages. This added sugar is about 15% of calories and the WHO guideline is less than this at ~10% of calories.
The mood music is in the direction of less sugar, with MFP adopting a 15% of calories guideline in their goal calcs. This fits in well with typical fruit etc consumption.0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »
The average American...including many actively trying to lose weight...does eat a "varied diet" and still eats way too much sugar based on medical guidelines. So just eating a varied diet does not mean overall sugar intake will be low enough to not cause health problems. Your diet may...I have no idea what you are eating and really don't care. But everybody in the world does not eat exactly what you do.
b) "Chances are that with a varied diet, your sugar intake (both natural and added, because.... sugar is sugar) will balance out just fine. " Which is what I said above, and you seemed to have ignored. Eating a varied diet means that one's overall sugar intake is unlikely to be so high that it causes health problems.Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »kitkatbird wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Like said, sugar is unimportant for weight loss. Unless medically required, there is no need to even monitor sugar intake. Chances are that with a varied diet, your sugar intake (both natural and added, because.... sugar is sugar) will balance out just fine.
Not according to MANY health professionals, and health organizations.
and MANY on the other side so those are full of BS ….
so are you saying that sugar consumption will hamper weight loss in a calorie deficit?
No she is saying it won't hamper weight loss but that doesn't mean it won't hurt your health. If I ate a calorie deficit where my diet was all sweets I'd lose weight but I would be skyrocketing my chances for developing diabetes and other health problems. My insulin levels would be so high all the time that my blood cells would become immune to it thus my blood sugar levels would remain high.
and there is the straw man argument…that train is never late…
No one in this thread advocated a diet of ALL sweets. What people are saying is that you can eat sugar in moderate amounts, be in a deficit, hit your calories/micros/macros, and you will lose weight and be healthy.
60 to 100 grams of sugar a day is hardly a diet of ALL sweets….that is what my sugar looks like and I am not any where near 100% all sugar consumption …my diary is open by the way ..
this may be the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard...
To be clear: I never said "all sweets".
What ana said was: don't worry about or even watch sugar intake. I disagree. FOR OVER ALL HEALTH reasons. Not a little number on a scale.
i was replying to the previous poster that said a diet of ALL sweets would be bad…which no one had advocated….
I understand that. I was clarifying, as I was the one being "explained".
Meanwhile: because she's only focused on a number on the scale, ana is misguided when she routinely tells people they don't need to watch their added sugars because naturally their diet will take care of things. It's foolish to think that, and foolish to tell people that.
Most people are eating too much sugar...whether at a healthy weight or not. That's why the major medical organizations are beginning to focus more intensely on sugar consumption.
^THIS^ So much this. N=1.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 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
- 983 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions