Questions about sugar

Options
18911131421

Replies

  • crazyjerseygirl
    crazyjerseygirl Posts: 1,252 Member
    Options
    jofjltncb6 wrote: »
    RGv2 wrote: »
    MrM27 wrote: »
    Just because "everyone" is doing it doesn't mean that it is OK.

    Many people can lose weight while consuming too much sugar. Some of us cannot. It's not only a question of weight loss--too much sugar in your diet isn't great for long-term health.

    I manage to eat a fair amount of chocolate and fruit and still not go over my sugar allowance. Switch some of your fruit consumption to vegetable consumption. It's not that hard.

    Did you read my post about the day I went over on sugar from consuming dairy and vegetables? No fruit?

    Besides, how much is "too much"?

    Nope, I didn't see that. How much dairy did you eat that day?

    Too much is when you are going over your allowances. I don't think that I have EVER gone over--that's a heck of a lot of sugar.

    Part of what the macros are doing is to help us moderate our diets on a daily level. Too much of anything is probably not great--we need variety. While one day will not make or break you, it is helpful to have that reminder in everyday tracking. Americans are used to a diet which contains vastly too much sugar in all of its forms--that seems normal, especially to people who are used to eating a lot of processed foods, but it might not be the best plan in the long term.

    Not everybody here is focused solely on weight loss. I want to live well, to be fit and to minimize the effects of some fairly serious health issues. I have excellent longevity in my family tree and I want to look and feel good as I age, because in all likelihood I am going to make it to a fairly old age.

    There are several IIFYM people here who have lost a lot of weight, but when you zoom in on their faces, they look a lot older than you would expect. Sure, aging has to do with genetics and all kinds of lifestyle choices, but it seems like, in some cases, the sugar isn't helping much. Yes, n=not very many and the research in this area is fairly new and somewhat limited. ..but I will keep eating within the goals, just in case. :)

    Really? That whole zoom in the face garbage. So let me ask you this, if that's the way you feel, why did you join my ice cream and gelato group?

    In case you didn't notice, many of us look better than you and are probably much healthier some coming out saying such ignorance is just ignorant.

    What's funny is I still get carded.....a lot. You'd think if I looked that much older it wouldn't happen......

    I get carded too, nearly every time I go into a bar or club. This is a lot, as I often go out dancing multiple times a week.

    I will be 40 in less than two months. NO WRINKLES.

    So you think IIFYM makes people look older.

    What do you think causes multiple metabolic diseases and drastically lower BMR? What if I publicly suggested that I believe poor dietary choices cause those? Would you take issue with that claim?




    (Oh, sure, I have absolutely no basis whatsoever to make that assertion...

    ...but I suppose you don't really have any to make your "IIFYM makes people look older" assertion either.)

    Hrm. My 62yo dad also has minimal wrinkles (eye creases) and Ha basically survives off of iced coffees and licorice.
  • PeachyCarol
    PeachyCarol Posts: 8,029 Member
    Options
    RGv2 wrote: »
    MrM27 wrote: »
    Just because "everyone" is doing it doesn't mean that it is OK.

    Many people can lose weight while consuming too much sugar. Some of us cannot. It's not only a question of weight loss--too much sugar in your diet isn't great for long-term health.

    I manage to eat a fair amount of chocolate and fruit and still not go over my sugar allowance. Switch some of your fruit consumption to vegetable consumption. It's not that hard.

    Did you read my post about the day I went over on sugar from consuming dairy and vegetables? No fruit?

    Besides, how much is "too much"?

    Nope, I didn't see that. How much dairy did you eat that day?

    Too much is when you are going over your allowances. I don't think that I have EVER gone over--that's a heck of a lot of sugar.

    Part of what the macros are doing is to help us moderate our diets on a daily level. Too much of anything is probably not great--we need variety. While one day will not make or break you, it is helpful to have that reminder in everyday tracking. Americans are used to a diet which contains vastly too much sugar in all of its forms--that seems normal, especially to people who are used to eating a lot of processed foods, but it might not be the best plan in the long term.

    Not everybody here is focused solely on weight loss. I want to live well, to be fit and to minimize the effects of some fairly serious health issues. I have excellent longevity in my family tree and I want to look and feel good as I age, because in all likelihood I am going to make it to a fairly old age.

    There are several IIFYM people here who have lost a lot of weight, but when you zoom in on their faces, they look a lot older than you would expect. Sure, aging has to do with genetics and all kinds of lifestyle choices, but it seems like, in some cases, the sugar isn't helping much. Yes, n=not very many and the research in this area is fairly new and somewhat limited. ..but I will keep eating within the goals, just in case. :)

    Really? That whole zoom in the face garbage. So let me ask you this, if that's the way you feel, why did you join my ice cream and gelato group?

    In case you didn't notice, many of us look better than you and are probably much healthier some coming out saying such ignorance is just ignorant.

    What's funny is I still get carded.....a lot. You'd think if I looked that much older it wouldn't happen......

    I get carded too, nearly every time I go into a bar or club. This is a lot, as I often go out dancing multiple times a week.

    I will be 40 in less than two months. NO WRINKLES.

    I'm 52. NO WRINKLES.

    I'll eat gelato on the same day I eat fruit and not care if I go over on sugar.

    What's your point?



  • tiffanyking1976
    tiffanyking1976 Posts: 24 Member
    Options
    zamphir66 wrote: »
    It will not affect your weight loss at all, unless you eat so much sugar that you zoom past your calorie goal. MFP's number is I believe for "added" sugars.

    I pay attention to protein -- i'm aiming at a minimum amount -- and disregard everything else. Maybe it's just my particular food choices, but doing that seems to result in all the other #s more or less taking care of themselves.

    Exactly. I am a protien girl and as long as i get that right and my carbs are close... im good.
  • Serah87
    Serah87 Posts: 5,481 Member
    Options
    RGv2 wrote: »
    MrM27 wrote: »
    Just because "everyone" is doing it doesn't mean that it is OK.

    Many people can lose weight while consuming too much sugar. Some of us cannot. It's not only a question of weight loss--too much sugar in your diet isn't great for long-term health.

    I manage to eat a fair amount of chocolate and fruit and still not go over my sugar allowance. Switch some of your fruit consumption to vegetable consumption. It's not that hard.

    Did you read my post about the day I went over on sugar from consuming dairy and vegetables? No fruit?

    Besides, how much is "too much"?

    Nope, I didn't see that. How much dairy did you eat that day?

    Too much is when you are going over your allowances. I don't think that I have EVER gone over--that's a heck of a lot of sugar.

    Part of what the macros are doing is to help us moderate our diets on a daily level. Too much of anything is probably not great--we need variety. While one day will not make or break you, it is helpful to have that reminder in everyday tracking. Americans are used to a diet which contains vastly too much sugar in all of its forms--that seems normal, especially to people who are used to eating a lot of processed foods, but it might not be the best plan in the long term.

    Not everybody here is focused solely on weight loss. I want to live well, to be fit and to minimize the effects of some fairly serious health issues. I have excellent longevity in my family tree and I want to look and feel good as I age, because in all likelihood I am going to make it to a fairly old age.

    There are several IIFYM people here who have lost a lot of weight, but when you zoom in on their faces, they look a lot older than you would expect. Sure, aging has to do with genetics and all kinds of lifestyle choices, but it seems like, in some cases, the sugar isn't helping much. Yes, n=not very many and the research in this area is fairly new and somewhat limited. ..but I will keep eating within the goals, just in case. :)

    Really? That whole zoom in the face garbage. So let me ask you this, if that's the way you feel, why did you join my ice cream and gelato group?

    In case you didn't notice, many of us look better than you and are probably much healthier some coming out saying such ignorance is just ignorant.

    What's funny is I still get carded.....a lot. You'd think if I looked that much older it wouldn't happen......

    I get carded too, nearly every time I go into a bar or club. This is a lot, as I often go out dancing multiple times a week.

    I will be 40 in less than two months. NO WRINKLES.

    i_want_a_cookie____by_sharpie1023-d643t2x.gif

    Neither do I, I am 45, 46 next month.
  • PeachyCarol
    PeachyCarol Posts: 8,029 Member
    Options
    Also, azulvioleta, it says on your profile that you aim to eat 10 vegetables a day, yet you claim to have no trouble sticking to your sugar goal.

    I would assume that you eat very small servings of the vegetables then, because it's quite easy for the sugars in a good quantity of vegetables to add up on a low caloric intake. I'm on 1240 calories and come quite close to my sugar goal just from vegetables and berries.

    Claiming how "easy" it is to make it on MFP's allowance is specious. Were I to have an apple instead of berries, I'd be over.
  • rocknlotsofrolls
    rocknlotsofrolls Posts: 418 Member
    Options
    Snickers bars are delicious. Peanuts, caramel, nougat, and chocolate? Delectable combination right there. Because of this thread, I think I'm going to buy a pack of the Fun Size for a little treat here or there. Those are usually enough for me. They're the only "not quality" chocolate I still like.

    They are good for the soul. Never underestimate the value of meeting your mental/emotional/inner child needs after your nutritional goals have been met. There's no food police handing out gold stars to the good little girls and boys who only ever eat nutritious food all the time. Treats here or there are not going to derail an overall nutritious diet.

    Anyway...

    I always like to share the story of the day I went over on my MFP sugar allowance simply from eating cottage cheese, plain Greek yogurt, and vegetables. No fruit. Just a LOT of cauliflower.
    I know. It sure is good to know that you can eat your cravings and still lose weight. As long as there is a calorie deficit. I used to get so sick of the comments like, "why are you eating that? I thought you were on a diet!" Until one day I decided to never ever tell someone close to me that I'm on a diet.
  • Chrysalid2014
    Chrysalid2014 Posts: 1,038 Member
    edited April 2015
    Options
    Snickers bars are delicious. Peanuts, caramel, nougat, and chocolate? Delectable combination right there. Because of this thread, I think I'm going to buy a pack of the Fun Size for a little treat here or there. Those are usually enough for me. They're the only "not quality" chocolate I still like.

    They are good for the soul. Never underestimate the value of meeting your mental/emotional/inner child needs after your nutritional goals have been met. There's no food police handing out gold stars to the good little girls and boys who only ever eat nutritious food all the time. Treats here or there are not going to derail an overall nutritious diet.

    So, basically you've decided what you want to do and then made up a philosophy/principle that not only favours your (questionable) action, but derides others that don't believe in it.

    I'm not a good little girl and I'm not waiting for a gold star from the food police. However, like many people, I prefer not to waste my daily allowance on high-calorie foods that have very little nutritious value.... Which I think was the OP's point when she said she chose to eat fruit over candy. I also, and more importantly, want to cure myself of having an 'emotional' attachment to food, as I don't think it's desirable or healthy. Food is fuel.

    Also, there's something I find rather confusing which I hope you will explain. I'm certain I have seen you repeatedly advising others on this forum that they should never go below 1,000 calories per day or they won't get adequate nutrition. Yet in your version of healthy eating one does get adequate nutrition with 990 calories plus a Snickers bar (i.e. your daily allowance minus the calories in a Snickers bar)? Intriguing!

  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    Options

    Also, there's something I find rather confusing which I hope you will explain. I'm certain I have seen you repeatedly advising others on this forum that they should never go below 1,000 calories per day or they won't get adequate nutrition. Yet in your version of healthy eating one does get adequate nutrition with 990 calories plus a Snickers bar (i.e. your daily allowance minus the calories in a Snickers bar)? Intriguing!

    You know, a Snickers is not a nutritional black hole. It contains protein and carbohydrates. Eating an 80 calorie "fun size" bar does not mean she will meet her nutritional needs on 1,120 calories plus a Snickers. It means she will meet her needs on 1,200, which includes 80 calories of Snickers.

  • PeachyCarol
    PeachyCarol Posts: 8,029 Member
    edited April 2015
    Options
    Snickers bars are delicious. Peanuts, caramel, nougat, and chocolate? Delectable combination right there. Because of this thread, I think I'm going to buy a pack of the Fun Size for a little treat here or there. Those are usually enough for me. They're the only "not quality" chocolate I still like.

    They are good for the soul. Never underestimate the value of meeting your mental/emotional/inner child needs after your nutritional goals have been met. There's no food police handing out gold stars to the good little girls and boys who only ever eat nutritious food all the time. Treats here or there are not going to derail an overall nutritious diet.

    So, basically you've decided what you want to do and then made up a philosophy/principle that not only favours your (questionable) action, but derides others that don't believe in it.

    I'm not a good little girl and I'm not waiting for a gold star from the food police. However, like many people, I prefer not to waste my daily allowance on high-calorie foods that have very little nutritious value.... Which I think was the OP's point when she said she chose to eat fruit over candy. I also, and more importantly, want to cure myself of having an 'emotional' attachment to food, as I don't think it's desirable or healthy. Food is fuel.

    Also, there's something I find rather confusing which I hope you will explain. I'm certain I have seen you repeatedly advising others on this forum that they should never go below 1,000 calories per day or they won't get adequate nutrition. Yet in your version of healthy eating one does get adequate nutrition with 990 calories plus a Snickers bar (i.e. your daily allowance minus the calories in a Snickers bar)? Intriguing!

    I would eat a fun size Snicker bar on my calorie goals, first off. It's what would work for me to get adequate nutrition (micronutrients from fruit and veggies) in the rest of my day. They're only 80 calories. I can easily fill my nutritional needs and have 80 calories left for a snack, especially on a gym day. Also, as far as I'm aware, Snickers bars still contain protein, carbohydrates, and fats. My body will digest them and use them.

    Feel free to look in my diary, it's public. Ignore the last few days, I've been really sick and eating whatever appeals to me in the moment and haven't had much appetite at all. So I'm WAY under calories and not worrying about anything but hydration.

    As for the assertions in your first few paragraphs, they're laughable, because you completely missed my point.

    You don't get anything extra from eating all nutritious food all the time other than vitamin rich pee and fiber rich poop. Once your nutritional needs have been met, a treat is not going to undo an otherwise nutritious diet.
  • PeachyCarol
    PeachyCarol Posts: 8,029 Member
    Options
    herrspoons wrote: »
    Snickers bars are delicious. Peanuts, caramel, nougat, and chocolate? Delectable combination right there. Because of this thread, I think I'm going to buy a pack of the Fun Size for a little treat here or there. Those are usually enough for me. They're the only "not quality" chocolate I still like.

    They are good for the soul. Never underestimate the value of meeting your mental/emotional/inner child needs after your nutritional goals have been met. There's no food police handing out gold stars to the good little girls and boys who only ever eat nutritious food all the time. Treats here or there are not going to derail an overall nutritious diet.

    So, basically you've decided what you want to do and then made up a philosophy/principle that not only favours your (questionable) action, but derides others that don't believe in it.

    I'm not a good little girl and I don't want a gold star from the food police. Like many people, I prefer not to waste my daily allowance on high-calorie foods that have very little nutritious value.... Which I think was the OP's point when she said she chose to eat fruit over candy. I also want to cure myself of having an 'emotional' attachment to food, as I don't think it's desirable or healthy. Food is fuel.

    Also, there's something I find rather confusing which I hope you will explain. I'm certain I have seen you repeatedly advising others on this forum that they should never go below 1,000 calories per day or they won't get adequate nutrition. Yet in your version of healthy eating one does get adequate nutrition with 990 calories plus a Snickers bar (i.e. your daily allowance minus the calories in a Snickers bar)? Intriguing!

    You are Pretty Kitty and I claim my £5.

    Snickers are the new Twinkies?

  • PeachyCarol
    PeachyCarol Posts: 8,029 Member
    edited April 2015
    Options
    MrM27 wrote: »
    Snickers bars are delicious. Peanuts, caramel, nougat, and chocolate? Delectable combination right there. Because of this thread, I think I'm going to buy a pack of the Fun Size for a little treat here or there. Those are usually enough for me. They're the only "not quality" chocolate I still like.

    They are good for the soul. Never underestimate the value of meeting your mental/emotional/inner child needs after your nutritional goals have been met. There's no food police handing out gold stars to the good little girls and boys who only ever eat nutritious food all the time. Treats here or there are not going to derail an overall nutritious diet.

    So, basically you've decided what you want to do and then made up a philosophy/principle that not only favours your (questionable) action, but derides others that don't believe in it.

    I'm not a good little girl and I'm not waiting for a gold star from the food police. However, like many people, I prefer not to waste my daily allowance on high-calorie foods that have very little nutritious value.... Which I think was the OP's point when she said she chose to eat fruit over candy. I also, and more importantly, want to cure myself of having an 'emotional' attachment to food, as I don't think it's desirable or healthy. Food is fuel.

    Also, there's something I find rather confusing which I hope you will explain. I'm certain I have seen you repeatedly advising others on this forum that they should never go below 1,000 calories per day or they won't get adequate nutrition. Yet in your version of healthy eating one does get adequate nutrition with 990 calories plus a Snickers bar (i.e. your daily allowance minus the calories in a Snickers bar)? Intriguing!

    You popped in yesterday and made a ridiculous statement about metabolic disorder and diabetes, a bunch of people asked you questions but you ignores the but you want people to address more of your ridiculous statements? That's sad.

    She also completely twisted what I said. Where did I deride anyone?

    There's a major chip on her shoulder.

    Also? I am so getting a bag of fun sized Snickers bars when I am over this creeping crud that has me eating next to nothing.

    I'm editing because I just thought of something tasty to do with them. On my next gym day, I think I'm going to chop one up and stir it into some Talenti. Maybe Salted Peanut Caramel.

  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    Options

    Also? I am so getting a bag of fun sized Snickers bars when I am over this creeping crud that has me eating next to nothing.

    I don't do milk chocolate, but this thread made me curious so I looked at my husband's fun size bag. 80 calories of Snickers gives you fat and carbohydrates, which is probably obvious to the "Snickers will kill you" contingent. But both are macros I try to get each day, so that can't be the problem. They also contain 3 grams of protein, a gram of fiber, and a sprinkling of calcium, riboflavin, and niacin.

    My husband has been eating 1-2 a night and losing weight. He told me they would kill his snack cravings for hours after dinner (he is a night owl and snacking on sweet stuff is his thing). It all makes sense now. Snacking on fruit, which he has also tried, does nothing for him. It just leaves him hungry.

    Bottom line: I have no idea why this food is being demonized.

  • DeguelloTex
    DeguelloTex Posts: 6,652 Member
    Options

    Also? I am so getting a bag of fun sized Snickers bars when I am over this creeping crud that has me eating next to nothing.

    I don't do milk chocolate, but this thread made me curious so I looked at my husband's fun size bag. 80 calories of Snickers gives you fat and carbohydrates, which is probably obvious to the "Snickers will kill you" contingent. But both are macros I try to get each day, so that can't be the problem. They also contain 3 grams of protein, a gram of fiber, and a sprinkling of calcium, riboflavin, and niacin.

    My husband has been eating 1-2 a night and losing weight. He told me they would kill his snack cravings for hours after dinner (he is a night owl and snacking on sweet stuff is his thing). It all makes sense now. Snacking on fruit, which he has also tried, does nothing for him. It just leaves him hungry.

    Bottom line: I have no idea why this food is being demonized.
    At dinner, I cut a Snickers into 10 pieces and put it in the freezer. Sometime after dinner, I eat the pieces one at a time. I get chocolate, caramel, peanuts, plus the coldness of ice cream. Also, fat, protein, and carbs. And it really satisfies. Snickers is a superfood.
  • DeguelloTex
    DeguelloTex Posts: 6,652 Member
    Options
    jofjltncb6 wrote: »
    jofjltncb6 wrote: »
    jofjltncb6 wrote: »
    jkwolly wrote: »
    jenhill76 wrote: »
    Thank you everyone! I'm not going to worry about it so long as it's "healthy" and natural sugar I'm consuming... and not from a snickers bar haha!
    Did you not read anything else in the thread?

    SMH.

    I think OP is right here. When you are restricting calories you should try to eat things that will benefit your body. If you are eating fruit you are clearly benefiting your body far more than a snickers would. What is weightloss without health.
    I think you are wrong here. As luck would have it, this is part of my planned menu for tomorrow.cswnx424l4ch.png

    The bottom numbers are my macro goals for the day. The top numbers are what I (will have) logged for the day. Tell me the problem with the Snickers here.


    No problem with the Snickers...

    ...but your fat target seems deleteriously low.
    It is low on workout days. It's 58g on non-workout days.

    Edited to add: On a weekly basis, I target 24.37% of my calories being from fat. Is that deleteriously low, in your view?

    Honestly, it does still sound a little low, but that's admittedly based more on "feel" and "average active adult male" assumptions than on any actual calculations. I didn't actually do any math on these new numbers. (Okay, strike that last statement. I just did some math. Assuming 185 pounds, that's <0.3g/pound, which is "low" fat consumption.)

    Your 35g fat limit (when I assumed that was daily) set off my "definitely too low" alarms for someone with a ~2k daily limit...because <0.2g/pound is low enough that I would expect it to negatively impact proper hormone regulation/production.

    I'm curious, though, what's your reasoning for keeping fat so low?
    I didn't think a rounded 25% of my daily calories via fat was "so low."

    Basically, one gram of protein per pound of body weight. That might be a bit on the high side given my body fat percentage, but I don't think it's outrageously so.

    Then, 25% of calories from fat. Then, the rest from carbs.

    I (try to) eat a consistent amount of protein every day. On lifting days, I eat more calories than other days and skew my weekly allotment of carbs to those days, and eat less fat. On non-lifting days, I eat fewer calories and skew toward fat and away from carbs.

    I'm basically on the last bit of losing 110-120 pounds and am starting slowly to bump up my calories to find maintenance before I eventually start to bulk. As I add more calories, they'll go almost exclusively to fat and carbs up to maintenance. The bulking calories above maintenance (150 a day or so) will also be almost all fat and carbs since one gram of protein per pound of body weight will take a pretty small slice out of the additional bulking calories.

    Got it. I still think 0.3g/pound of fat is a little lower than optimal based on quite a bit of reading I did once upon a time about the effects on hormone production/regulation (specifically testosterone), but like I said, not crazy low (like when I thought you were eating 35g of fat every day without exception). Something to consider is looking at your macros in terms of g/pound instead of percentages. The percentage approach kind of falls apart if you try to apply it to a deficit/maintenance/surplus.

    But this is just another example of how IIFYM works for all kinds of macro ranges (and why IIFYC is actually more accurate...because even if my diet doesn't fit my macros on any particular day/week/month, if it fits my calories, I will make progress towards my weight goal (whatever direction that happens to be from my current weight).

    My completely unsolicited advice: as you continue tweaking your macros/calories as you move into maintenance and beyond, I'd recommend you consider bumping up your fat consumption for a while...perhaps to something closer to 0.4g/pound. Many have found some profoundly positive effects from increased fat consumption. Oh, and congrats on your remarkable success in reaching/nearly reaching your goal. 100+ pound loss is a remarkable accomplishment.
    At my theoretical low weight -- it will depend on my body fat, so it may not be exactly the weight I'm using in Excel at the moment -- and my theoretical maintenance calories at that weight with a small surplus for bulking, fat will be 25% of my total calories and 0.37g/lb. My issue, at this point, is that I am constrained by a relatively low calorie level and a relatively high protein level, which kind of crowds out carbs and fat to some extent. That issue will fade as the deficit goes away, as it has started to do.

    I don't mind well thought out advice, solicited or not. I think my longer term plan gets me in the ballpark of what you're suggesting, even if not all the way to 0.4g/lb. Also, once I'm in maintenance or surplus, those 9 calories per gram might not seem as important and bumping up fat a little more wouldn't be off the table.

    Thanks for the congrats. Pictures of me from a year ago are kind of mortifying at this point, but the year went by pretty quickly... and was going to go by whether I made better choices or not.
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    Options
    RGv2 wrote: »
    MrM27 wrote: »
    Just because "everyone" is doing it doesn't mean that it is OK.

    Many people can lose weight while consuming too much sugar. Some of us cannot. It's not only a question of weight loss--too much sugar in your diet isn't great for long-term health.

    I manage to eat a fair amount of chocolate and fruit and still not go over my sugar allowance. Switch some of your fruit consumption to vegetable consumption. It's not that hard.

    Did you read my post about the day I went over on sugar from consuming dairy and vegetables? No fruit?

    Besides, how much is "too much"?

    Nope, I didn't see that. How much dairy did you eat that day?

    Too much is when you are going over your allowances. I don't think that I have EVER gone over--that's a heck of a lot of sugar.

    Part of what the macros are doing is to help us moderate our diets on a daily level. Too much of anything is probably not great--we need variety. While one day will not make or break you, it is helpful to have that reminder in everyday tracking. Americans are used to a diet which contains vastly too much sugar in all of its forms--that seems normal, especially to people who are used to eating a lot of processed foods, but it might not be the best plan in the long term.

    Not everybody here is focused solely on weight loss. I want to live well, to be fit and to minimize the effects of some fairly serious health issues. I have excellent longevity in my family tree and I want to look and feel good as I age, because in all likelihood I am going to make it to a fairly old age.

    There are several IIFYM people here who have lost a lot of weight, but when you zoom in on their faces, they look a lot older than you would expect. Sure, aging has to do with genetics and all kinds of lifestyle choices, but it seems like, in some cases, the sugar isn't helping much. Yes, n=not very many and the research in this area is fairly new and somewhat limited. ..but I will keep eating within the goals, just in case. :)

    Really? That whole zoom in the face garbage. So let me ask you this, if that's the way you feel, why did you join my ice cream and gelato group?

    In case you didn't notice, many of us look better than you and are probably much healthier some coming out saying such ignorance is just ignorant.

    What's funny is I still get carded.....a lot. You'd think if I looked that much older it wouldn't happen......

    I get carded too, nearly every time I go into a bar or club. This is a lot, as I often go out dancing multiple times a week.

    I will be 40 in less than two months. NO WRINKLES.

    why don't you have a face picture posted???
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    Options
    herrspoons wrote: »
    Snickers bars are delicious. Peanuts, caramel, nougat, and chocolate? Delectable combination right there. Because of this thread, I think I'm going to buy a pack of the Fun Size for a little treat here or there. Those are usually enough for me. They're the only "not quality" chocolate I still like.

    They are good for the soul. Never underestimate the value of meeting your mental/emotional/inner child needs after your nutritional goals have been met. There's no food police handing out gold stars to the good little girls and boys who only ever eat nutritious food all the time. Treats here or there are not going to derail an overall nutritious diet.

    So, basically you've decided what you want to do and then made up a philosophy/principle that not only favours your (questionable) action, but derides others that don't believe in it.

    I'm not a good little girl and I don't want a gold star from the food police. Like many people, I prefer not to waste my daily allowance on high-calorie foods that have very little nutritious value.... Which I think was the OP's point when she said she chose to eat fruit over candy. I also want to cure myself of having an 'emotional' attachment to food, as I don't think it's desirable or healthy. Food is fuel.

    Also, there's something I find rather confusing which I hope you will explain. I'm certain I have seen you repeatedly advising others on this forum that they should never go below 1,000 calories per day or they won't get adequate nutrition. Yet in your version of healthy eating one does get adequate nutrition with 990 calories plus a Snickers bar (i.e. your daily allowance minus the calories in a Snickers bar)? Intriguing!

    You are Pretty Kitty and I claim my £5.

    I vote for CICO15 and claim my 5.00….
  • RGv2
    RGv2 Posts: 5,789 Member
    Options
    RGv2 wrote: »
    MrM27 wrote: »
    Just because "everyone" is doing it doesn't mean that it is OK.

    Many people can lose weight while consuming too much sugar. Some of us cannot. It's not only a question of weight loss--too much sugar in your diet isn't great for long-term health.

    I manage to eat a fair amount of chocolate and fruit and still not go over my sugar allowance. Switch some of your fruit consumption to vegetable consumption. It's not that hard.

    Did you read my post about the day I went over on sugar from consuming dairy and vegetables? No fruit?

    Besides, how much is "too much"?

    Nope, I didn't see that. How much dairy did you eat that day?

    Too much is when you are going over your allowances. I don't think that I have EVER gone over--that's a heck of a lot of sugar.

    Part of what the macros are doing is to help us moderate our diets on a daily level. Too much of anything is probably not great--we need variety. While one day will not make or break you, it is helpful to have that reminder in everyday tracking. Americans are used to a diet which contains vastly too much sugar in all of its forms--that seems normal, especially to people who are used to eating a lot of processed foods, but it might not be the best plan in the long term.

    Not everybody here is focused solely on weight loss. I want to live well, to be fit and to minimize the effects of some fairly serious health issues. I have excellent longevity in my family tree and I want to look and feel good as I age, because in all likelihood I am going to make it to a fairly old age.

    There are several IIFYM people here who have lost a lot of weight, but when you zoom in on their faces, they look a lot older than you would expect. Sure, aging has to do with genetics and all kinds of lifestyle choices, but it seems like, in some cases, the sugar isn't helping much. Yes, n=not very many and the research in this area is fairly new and somewhat limited. ..but I will keep eating within the goals, just in case. :)

    Really? That whole zoom in the face garbage. So let me ask you this, if that's the way you feel, why did you join my ice cream and gelato group?

    In case you didn't notice, many of us look better than you and are probably much healthier some coming out saying such ignorance is just ignorant.

    What's funny is I still get carded.....a lot. You'd think if I looked that much older it wouldn't happen......

    I get carded too, nearly every time I go into a bar or club. This is a lot, as I often go out dancing multiple times a week.

    I will be 40 in less than two months. NO WRINKLES.

    Um, OK. That somehow invalidates my point?