Questions about sugar
Replies
-
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
Let's suppose someone is on a 1230 calorie diet according to the default MFP nutrition goals:
So from this one item, towards their recommended daily amount, they are getting:
21% of their calories!
42% of their carbs!
29% of their fat!
Only 6% of their protein...
So, the calorie "cost" (21%) is not in line with the other "costs" so therefore it's common sense to choose something else.
The screenshot clearly shows that the person posting this isn't on 1,230 calories. They are on 1,980.0 -
Artificial flavor!!!!
Maybe I should eat Flamin' Hot Cheetos instead, since the government calls them a healthy snack. Wouldn't that be "common sense"?0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
Let's suppose someone is on a 1230 calorie diet according to the default MFP nutrition goals:
So from this one item, towards their recommended daily amount, they are getting:
21% of their calories!
42% of their carbs!
29% of their fat!
Only 6% of their protein...
So, the calorie "cost" (21%) is not in line with the other "costs" so therefore it's common sense to choose something else.[/quote]
Okay, but what if their calorie count for the day is 3600?
0 -
Let's suppose you answer the question asked, not the one you want to answer.Chrysalid2014 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Tell me why "common sense" says this dessert is a problem:
Let's suppose someone is on a 1230 calorie diet according to the default MFP nutrition goals:
So from this one item, towards their recommended daily amount, they are getting:
21% of their calories!
42% of their carbs!
29% of their fat!
Only 6% of their protein...
So, the calorie "cost" (21%) is not in line with the other "costs" so therefore it's common sense to choose something else.
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
Tell me why "common sense" says this dessert is a problem:DeguelloTex wrote: »
Let's suppose someone is on a 1230 calorie diet according to the default MFP nutrition goals:
So from this one item, towards their recommended daily amount, they are getting:
21% of their calories!
42% of their carbs!
29% of their fat!
Only 6% of their protein...
So, the calorie "cost" (21%) is not in line with the other "costs" so therefore it's common sense to choose something else.
No let's not "suppose" so you can change the rules. This person is not on 1200 calories. The person who IS on 1200 stated she would eat a fun size bar that comes in at 80 calories. You don't get to pull the full size bar from the higher calorie person and insert it into the smaller calorie day to make your argument. Try again.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
Tell me why "common sense" says this dessert is a problem:DeguelloTex wrote: »
Let's suppose someone is on a 1230 calorie diet according to the default MFP nutrition goals:
So from this one item, towards their recommended daily amount, they are getting:
21% of their calories!
42% of their carbs!
29% of their fat!
Only 6% of their protein...
So, the calorie "cost" (21%) is not in line with the other "costs" so therefore it's common sense to choose something else.
You don't get to pull the full size bar from the higher calorie person and insert it into the smaller calorie day to make your argument. Try again.
When that's the only way it will make sense, you need to do that...lol.
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »That aside, obviously we would all die without insulin. That's why we each have a pancreas. However, I don't know why you're asking the question. Where did I infer insulin was bad?
You said "uh, ever heard of insulin", you know you were saying it was bad. You think I'm a bore (I'm assuming that's what you tried to write) because you have no answers. This conversation is clearly above your head. This page alone demonstrated that you do not have the ability to answer basic questions on this thread which is pathetic especially since you are criticizing the food people eat.
I said "insulin resistance"; not "insulin", and as I already clarified, I was asking a question as to whether there was any connection between this (and other stated disorders) and diet. I admit I should have phrased this question more carefully; I was in rather a hurry as I was on my way out for the evening.
And, I refered to you as a "boor" not "bore" (although if the shoe fits...)
And, this entire discussion started because someone was criticized en masse for wanting to eat fruit instead of candy.
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »That aside, obviously we would all die without insulin. That's why we each have a pancreas. However, I don't know why you're asking the question. Where did I infer insulin was bad?
You said "uh, ever heard of insulin", you know you were saying it was bad. You think I'm a bore (I'm assuming that's what you tried to write) because you have no answers. This conversation is clearly above your head. This page alone demonstrated that you do not have the ability to answer basic questions on this thread which is pathetic especially since you are criticizing the food people eat.
I said "insulin resistance"; not "insulin", and as I already clarified, I was asking a question as to whether there was any connection between this (and other stated disorders) and diet. I admit I should have phrased this question more carefully; I was in rather a hurry as I was on my way out for the evening.
And, I refered to you as a "boor" not "bore" (although if the shoe fits...)
And, this entire discussion started because someone was criticized en masse for wanting to eat fruit instead of candy.
The criticism wasn't for wanting to eat fruit instead of candy. The criticism was for the reasoning behind it. As you are demonstrating in abundance, the reasoning isn't all that great.0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »That aside, obviously we would all die without insulin. That's why we each have a pancreas. However, I don't know why you're asking the question. Where did I infer insulin was bad?
You said "uh, ever heard of insulin", you know you were saying it was bad. You think I'm a bore (I'm assuming that's what you tried to write) because you have no answers. This conversation is clearly above your head. This page alone demonstrated that you do not have the ability to answer basic questions on this thread which is pathetic especially since you are criticizing the food people eat.
I said "insulin resistance"; not "insulin", and as I already clarified, I was asking a question as to whether there was any connection between this (and other stated disorders) and diet. I admit I should have phrased this question more carefully; I was in rather a hurry as I was on my way out for the evening.
And, I refered to you as a "boor" not "bore" (although if the shoe fits...)
And, this entire discussion started because someone was criticized en masse for wanting to eat fruit instead of candy.
Reading comprehension fail.0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
Tell me why "common sense" says this dessert is a problem:DeguelloTex wrote: »
Let's suppose someone is on a 1230 calorie diet according to the default MFP nutrition goals:
So from this one item, towards their recommended daily amount, they are getting:
21% of their calories!
42% of their carbs!
29% of their fat!
Only 6% of their protein...
So, the calorie "cost" (21%) is not in line with the other "costs" so therefore it's common sense to choose something else.
He's not on 1230 calories. Why did you change the question?
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
janejellyroll wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
Let's suppose someone is on a 1230 calorie diet according to the default MFP nutrition goals:
So from this one item, towards their recommended daily amount, they are getting:
21% of their calories!
42% of their carbs!
29% of their fat!
Only 6% of their protein...
So, the calorie "cost" (21%) is not in line with the other "costs" so therefore it's common sense to choose something else.
The screenshot clearly shows that the person posting this isn't on 1,230 calories. They are on 1,980.
Well, the numbers I quoted are percentages, so they would rise or fall in the same proportion to one another (grade six math).
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
Let's suppose someone is on a 1230 calorie diet according to the default MFP nutrition goals:
So from this one item, towards their recommended daily amount, they are getting:
21% of their calories!
42% of their carbs!
29% of their fat!
Only 6% of their protein...
So, the calorie "cost" (21%) is not in line with the other "costs" so therefore it's common sense to choose something else.
The screenshot clearly shows that the person posting this isn't on 1,230 calories. They are on 1,980.
Well, the numbers I quoted are percentages, so they would rise or fall in the same proportion to one another (grade six math).
He asked you what's wrong with HIM eating that Snickers bar.
What point are you trying to make? Who's eating 1230 calories?
0 -
[
Okay, but what if their calorie count for the day is 3600?
Well the percentages would still be in proportion to one another, but also I wouldn't consider someone on 3600 calories to be "calorie restricted". We're talking about the best use of calories on a calorie restricted diet.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
You may be surprised to learn that 33 grams of carbs is a different percentage of a 1230 calorie diet than of a 1980 calorie diet. Perhaps your fundamental misunderstanding of 6th grade math is at the root of your problem.Chrysalid2014 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
Let's suppose someone is on a 1230 calorie diet according to the default MFP nutrition goals:
So from this one item, towards their recommended daily amount, they are getting:
21% of their calories!
42% of their carbs!
29% of their fat!
Only 6% of their protein...
So, the calorie "cost" (21%) is not in line with the other "costs" so therefore it's common sense to choose something else.
The screenshot clearly shows that the person posting this isn't on 1,230 calories. They are on 1,980.
Well, the numbers I quoted are percentages, so they would rise or fall in the same proportion to one another (grade six math).
Why don't you answer the actual question asked?
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
Tell me why "common sense" says this dessert is a problem:DeguelloTex wrote: »
Let's suppose someone is on a 1230 calorie diet according to the default MFP nutrition goals:
So from this one item, towards their recommended daily amount, they are getting:
21% of their calories!
42% of their carbs!
29% of their fat!
Only 6% of their protein...
So, the calorie "cost" (21%) is not in line with the other "costs" so therefore it's common sense to choose something else.
No let's not "suppose" so you can change the rules. This person is not on 1200 calories. The person who IS on 1200 stated she would eat a fun size bar that comes in at 80 calories. You don't get to pull the full size bar from the higher calorie person and insert it into the smaller calorie day to make your argument. Try again.
You want me to work out the percentages for a different number of calories? The percentages will still be in the same proportion to one another.0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
Tell me why "common sense" says this dessert is a problem:DeguelloTex wrote: »
Let's suppose someone is on a 1230 calorie diet according to the default MFP nutrition goals:
So from this one item, towards their recommended daily amount, they are getting:
21% of their calories!
42% of their carbs!
29% of their fat!
Only 6% of their protein...
So, the calorie "cost" (21%) is not in line with the other "costs" so therefore it's common sense to choose something else.
No let's not "suppose" so you can change the rules. This person is not on 1200 calories. The person who IS on 1200 stated she would eat a fun size bar that comes in at 80 calories. You don't get to pull the full size bar from the higher calorie person and insert it into the smaller calorie day to make your argument. Try again.
Aw, I wanted to get her to admit that's what she was doing and catch her at not actually reading the thread.
0 -
No. She, and everyone else, wants you to answer the specific question about the specific Snickers bar in the specific macro allocation of the specific diet about which you were asked.Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
Tell me why "common sense" says this dessert is a problem:DeguelloTex wrote: »
Let's suppose someone is on a 1230 calorie diet according to the default MFP nutrition goals:
So from this one item, towards their recommended daily amount, they are getting:
21% of their calories!
42% of their carbs!
29% of their fat!
Only 6% of their protein...
So, the calorie "cost" (21%) is not in line with the other "costs" so therefore it's common sense to choose something else.
No let's not "suppose" so you can change the rules. This person is not on 1200 calories. The person who IS on 1200 stated she would eat a fun size bar that comes in at 80 calories. You don't get to pull the full size bar from the higher calorie person and insert it into the smaller calorie day to make your argument. Try again.
You want me to work out the percentages for a different number of calories? The percentages will still be in the same proportion to one another.
In case you don't get it, the numbers at the very bottom of the screen are my macro and calorie targets and the lighter numbers just above them are my actual numbers.
0 -
It's cute that you find comments b***** just because it forces you to read and learn something in order to keep up with the conversation. See you next time when you pop in with random statements.
Oh hey, thanks. I really do try.
I'll be sure to remember this and read the thread first.
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »[
Okay, but what if their calorie count for the day is 3600?
Well the percentages would still be in proportion to one another, but also I wouldn't consider someone on 3600 calories to be "calorie restricted". We're talking about the best use of calories on a calorie restricted diet.
Actually, no they wouldn't. I only did the calculation on calories, but the full sized Snickers bar is 11% of Deguello's calories. The fun-sized Snickers bar would only be 6% of 1200 calories for me.
AND you'd have to redo your calculations to show the breakdown to what the Snickers bar represented for Deguello, not me.
0 -
The issue isn't how the allocations of macros and calories relate to each other on the piece of food. The issue is how those allocations fit into a complete day's worth of macros and calories.Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
Tell me why "common sense" says this dessert is a problem:DeguelloTex wrote: »
Let's suppose someone is on a 1230 calorie diet according to the default MFP nutrition goals:
So from this one item, towards their recommended daily amount, they are getting:
21% of their calories!
42% of their carbs!
29% of their fat!
Only 6% of their protein...
So, the calorie "cost" (21%) is not in line with the other "costs" so therefore it's common sense to choose something else.
No let's not "suppose" so you can change the rules. This person is not on 1200 calories. The person who IS on 1200 stated she would eat a fun size bar that comes in at 80 calories. You don't get to pull the full size bar from the higher calorie person and insert it into the smaller calorie day to make your argument. Try again.
You want me to work out the percentages for a different number of calories? The percentages will still be in the same proportion to one another.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Her statement was so vague that three of us took it to mean 3 different things. Too funny.0
-
I'll take the Snickers that's being bandied about.0
-
I find it interesting that in the world where the sugar-bashing people live everything is full size. If you say you ate a Snickers bar it was probably the king size Snickers, if you had ice cream you must have had the whole pint.
At the end of the day it's their own inability to eat certain foods in moderation. If you were to say "I choose not to eat a Snickers bar (fun, regular, king) because once I have one I have a hard time stopping myself from eating another one" is different than "I choose not to eat a Snickers bar because Snickers are bad for you and if you choose to eat one then you have zero concern for your health". It's no longer a matter of semantics, they are two completely different statements.0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »[
Okay, but what if their calorie count for the day is 3600?
Well the percentages would still be in proportion to one another, but also I wouldn't consider someone on 3600 calories to be "calorie restricted". We're talking about the best use of calories on a calorie restricted diet.
How about 3300 then since that is my cutting cals? The question is specifically, how is that Snicker's bar unhealthy to me when I am cutting on 3300 calories when all of my other nutritional goals/vitamins/minerals were met in the first 2500 calories?
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions