Sugar as evil
Options
Replies
-
Why is sugar worse than fat? Because sugar is the new boogeyman? Hey, I watched my sugar for years. Read the labels. Watched it all. But many items full of sugar, like fruits, I tolerated just fine while some carbohydrates (i.e. white rice) hit this diabetic like a ton of bricks.
When my weight came off, so did the cholesterol markers, so did the diabetes. No big changes to my diet other than portions. I eat more sugar these days because I can.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »On other matters, there has been discussion about the continued medical warnings about excess sat fat (for similar reasons) and some of the same people who are anti sugar were dismissive on the grounds that they have no cholesterol issues. I'm sympathetic to that--I also have never had any cholesterol issues, and I suspect the biggest positive thing many could do is lose weight anyway--but you'd think more people would get that a lot of the sugar paranoia is basically identical to the fat paranoia of old, and unlikely to be any more helpful.
This point was made by another poster early on in the thread.
I never had issues with high cholesterol, even when I obeist.
Neither did I, nor with insulin resistance, for that matter. I might have if I'd stayed fat longer, but I'd never had any bad test results when I decided to lose weight.
Quite often people who lose by any diet improve their test results, though.
I think high cholesterol is genetics, I could be wrong, but on my side of the family their is no high cholesterol, but my hubby who skinny as toothpick most of his life except the last few years, has always had high cholesterol and it runs on his side of the family.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »On other matters, there has been discussion about the continued medical warnings about excess sat fat (for similar reasons) and some of the same people who are anti sugar were dismissive on the grounds that they have no cholesterol issues. I'm sympathetic to that--I also have never had any cholesterol issues, and I suspect the biggest positive thing many could do is lose weight anyway--but you'd think more people would get that a lot of the sugar paranoia is basically identical to the fat paranoia of old, and unlikely to be any more helpful.
This point was made by another poster early on in the thread.
I would question whether limiting sugar and especially added or refined sugars would not be more helpful in a diet than limiting fat.
I think for most it would be (I personally find fat more satiating, and that includes saturated fat), but the point is that focusing on one macronutrient and all foods containing it, so that "no sugar!" or "no fat!" become markers of healthiness independent of anything else about the product--see the Walden Farms discussion--is really a distraction from what you ideally should focus on to have a healthy diet overall.
For example, the number of people convinced that eating fruit might be unhealthy or that sugar should ideally be eliminated isn't all that different from people thinking Snackwells are some kind of health food.
Maybe. But I don't see many posts from people convinced that fruit is unhealthy.
I've seen a ton.
Even the current one is really a question about that: if at my sugar limit (according to MFP), should I avoid fruit?
I also was told by another poster during this thread that eating more dairy and fruit than your MFP sugar limit is probably dangerous.0 -
Why is sugar worse than fat? Because sugar is the new boogeyman? Hey, I watched my sugar for years. Read the labels. Watched it all. But many items full of sugar, like fruits, I tolerated just fine while some carbohydrates (i.e. white rice) hit this diabetic like a ton of bricks.
When my weight came off, so did the cholesterol markers, so did the diabetes. No big changes to my diet other than portions. I eat more sugar these days because I can.
I wouldn't say that sugar is worse than fat. I said limiting sugar is probably better than limiting fat. And by limiting I mean low, as in low sugar vs low fat.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »On other matters, there has been discussion about the continued medical warnings about excess sat fat (for similar reasons) and some of the same people who are anti sugar were dismissive on the grounds that they have no cholesterol issues. I'm sympathetic to that--I also have never had any cholesterol issues, and I suspect the biggest positive thing many could do is lose weight anyway--but you'd think more people would get that a lot of the sugar paranoia is basically identical to the fat paranoia of old, and unlikely to be any more helpful.
This point was made by another poster early on in the thread.
I would question whether limiting sugar and especially added or refined sugars would not be more helpful in a diet than limiting fat.
I think for most it would be (I personally find fat more satiating, and that includes saturated fat), but the point is that focusing on one macronutrient and all foods containing it, so that "no sugar!" or "no fat!" become markers of healthiness independent of anything else about the product--see the Walden Farms discussion--is really a distraction from what you ideally should focus on to have a healthy diet overall.
For example, the number of people convinced that eating fruit might be unhealthy or that sugar should ideally be eliminated isn't all that different from people thinking Snackwells are some kind of health food.
Maybe. But I don't see many posts from people convinced that fruit is unhealthy.
I've seen a ton.
Even the current one is really a question about that: if at my sugar limit (according to MFP), should I avoid fruit?
I also was told by another poster during this thread that eating more dairy and fruit than your MFP sugar limit is probably dangerous.
We think differently I guess. Someone asking if they are getting too much sugar from fruit doesn't translate to 'I think fruit is unhealthy' for me.
ETA: I realize there are some who are afraid of all sugar, even naturally occurring sugar, but I think it's the definite minority.0 -
In this study, age was the primary marker for higher cholesterol.
bmj.com/content/1/5644/595
This study found that controlling fats had a higher impact on cholesterol.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/18/4/237.short
0 -
In this study, age was the primary marker for higher cholesterol.
bmj.com/content/1/5644/595
This study found that controlling fats had a higher impact on cholesterol.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/18/4/237.short
I only read the abstract, but that second study is comparing different types of fats.0 -
much plenty bro science - Real science says ... it depends on if you are sensitive to it or not. If you are not sensitive then sugar is no problem, if you are sensitive then leave it alone at all costs.0
-
If you're referring to my posts in this thread -- which I think you are -- I never said anything of the sort.lemurcat12 wrote: »<snip>
I also was told by another poster during this thread that eating more dairy and fruit than your MFP sugar limit is probably dangerous.
0 -
herrspoons wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Why is sugar worse than fat? Because sugar is the new boogeyman? Hey, I watched my sugar for years. Read the labels. Watched it all. But many items full of sugar, like fruits, I tolerated just fine while some carbohydrates (i.e. white rice) hit this diabetic like a ton of bricks.
When my weight came off, so did the cholesterol markers, so did the diabetes. No big changes to my diet other than portions. I eat more sugar these days because I can.
I wouldn't say that sugar is worse than fat. I said limiting sugar is probably better than limiting fat. And by limiting I mean low, as in low sugar vs low fat.
Logically, by implication that's exactly what you're saying.
No, it's not at all.0 -
-
herrspoons wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Why is sugar worse than fat? Because sugar is the new boogeyman? Hey, I watched my sugar for years. Read the labels. Watched it all. But many items full of sugar, like fruits, I tolerated just fine while some carbohydrates (i.e. white rice) hit this diabetic like a ton of bricks.
When my weight came off, so did the cholesterol markers, so did the diabetes. No big changes to my diet other than portions. I eat more sugar these days because I can.
I wouldn't say that sugar is worse than fat. I said limiting sugar is probably better than limiting fat. And by limiting I mean low, as in low sugar vs low fat.
Logically, by implication that's exactly what you're saying.
LOL and here we go ....
just save your breath brother, she is never wrong...0 -
-
herrspoons wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Why is sugar worse than fat? Because sugar is the new boogeyman? Hey, I watched my sugar for years. Read the labels. Watched it all. But many items full of sugar, like fruits, I tolerated just fine while some carbohydrates (i.e. white rice) hit this diabetic like a ton of bricks.
When my weight came off, so did the cholesterol markers, so did the diabetes. No big changes to my diet other than portions. I eat more sugar these days because I can.
I wouldn't say that sugar is worse than fat. I said limiting sugar is probably better than limiting fat. And by limiting I mean low, as in low sugar vs low fat.
Logically, by implication that's exactly what you're saying.
LOL and here we go ....
just save your breath brother, she is never wrong...
Anyone is free to disagree with my opinions, but extrapolating my statements to mean something not intended makes no sense.
I never said sugar is worse than fat, except within the context of the low sugar vs low fat discussion. If you can't grasp the difference, then I can't help that.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I only read the abstract, but that second study is comparing different types of fats.
I only read the abstract too, but the two study groups were differentiated by how much sugar was in their diets. There was no difference in cholesterol levels from different amounts of sugar.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »On other matters, there has been discussion about the continued medical warnings about excess sat fat (for similar reasons) and some of the same people who are anti sugar were dismissive on the grounds that they have no cholesterol issues. I'm sympathetic to that--I also have never had any cholesterol issues, and I suspect the biggest positive thing many could do is lose weight anyway--but you'd think more people would get that a lot of the sugar paranoia is basically identical to the fat paranoia of old, and unlikely to be any more helpful.
This point was made by another poster early on in the thread.
I would question whether limiting sugar and especially added or refined sugars would not be more helpful in a diet than limiting fat.
I think for most it would be (I personally find fat more satiating, and that includes saturated fat), but the point is that focusing on one macronutrient and all foods containing it, so that "no sugar!" or "no fat!" become markers of healthiness independent of anything else about the product--see the Walden Farms discussion--is really a distraction from what you ideally should focus on to have a healthy diet overall.
For example, the number of people convinced that eating fruit might be unhealthy or that sugar should ideally be eliminated isn't all that different from people thinking Snackwells are some kind of health food.
Maybe. But I don't see many posts from people convinced that fruit is unhealthy.
I've seen a ton.
Even the current one is really a question about that: if at my sugar limit (according to MFP), should I avoid fruit?
I also was told by another poster during this thread that eating more dairy and fruit than your MFP sugar limit is probably dangerous.
We think differently I guess. Someone asking if they are getting too much sugar from fruit doesn't translate to 'I think fruit is unhealthy' for me.
In the threads where those questions are asked there are invariably multiple posters who jump in and say fruit and dairy should be limited or go on about non-fat dairy.
For the record, I was actually trying to agree with your post in referencing the sugar paranoia becoming like the fat paranoia that we are still recovering from. As I said earlier, I thought you put it well in this post:Too much sugar is not a good thing. And most American eat too much sugar. This causes health agencies to put out recommendations to cut back on sugar.
Unfortunately, many people see "cut back" as "cut out" and start thinking all sugar is evil/bad/unhealthy and try to cut it all out, when they really should just be cutting down on the amount they eat.
It's the same thing that happened in the 80's when the recommendation to eat less fat and especially less saturated fat came out. Suddenly all fat was bad and to be avoided.0 -
MFP sets the sugar limits based on a draft WHO recommendation. The WHO recommendation is based on added sugars, but MFP does not differentiate. This leads dieters who are watching their sugars, to go over the MFP allowance on naturally occurring sugars alone.
What can they do? Drink lactose - free milk and sugar-free fruits? Insanity.
There has to be some sense applied here. Sugar is not the bugbear. The MFP limit is too low.0 -
-
Sugar thread! Yippeee!!!!!
10 pages on yet.... another worthless....sugar thread...
This never ends well0 -
MFP sets the sugar limits based on a draft WHO recommendation. The WHO recommendation is based on added sugars, but MFP does not differentiate. This leads dieters who are watching their sugars, to go over the MFP allowance on naturally occurring sugars alone.
What can they do? Drink lactose - free milk and sugar-free fruits? Insanity.
There has to be some sense applied here. Sugar is not the bugbear. The MFP limit is too low.
Actually, the limit is based on the food recommendations in the 2010 Dietary Guidelines which if followed would have about 10% of your calories coming from naturally occurring sugar. They then take it a step further and allow for another 5% for free sugars the WHO recommends. That's a total of 15% of your total calories from sugar -- 10% naturally occurring, 5% added.
All of which seems entirely reasonable to me; sensible given the current research without being alarmist.
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
- 232.3K 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
- 999 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions