Questions about sugar
Replies
-
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »
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.
Candy bars, as my American cousins used to call them, officially fit your own government's definition of "empty calories". So why someone with a stated serious health problem would choose to consume them – unless that person had some kind of psychological dependence (which is in itself unhealthy) – is beyond me.
Why is consuming 80 calories of "empty calories" bad, either for someone with a health problem (that I suspect she knows the details of more than you, thus an eye roll is needed here for your pretense at concern) or otherwise? (Also, at least some of those calories are peanuts, right? if peanuts don't count as "empty calories" when consumed on their own or in buttered form, why in a Snickers?)
This is the weird assumption by the eliminationists which I do not understand.
Sure, if you miss out on nutrients you need or go over calories required for maintenance or loss (if those are your goals), then cutting down on "empty calories" would be an important thing to do. But if not, what's the problem?
I don't even like Snickers, so I'm not justifying anything (in general I'm pro chocolate covered nuts, however--they formed a portion of my food carried while biking when on my recent biking trip). I just find this claim odd. Nutrition advice generally is to limit "empty" calories and not to eat such things to excess--what excess is depends, of course.
If you are going to slam others for eating some empty calories on occasion--especially as in this case 80 calories of them--that's pretty messed up.0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »Either that or I just got lucky. I think I just got lucky, but you can go with the Italian theory. I laugh and laugh because I've never used moisturizer and my aunt, a cosmetologist, always used to laugh and tell me how old and wrinkled I was going to look compared to everyone else. Last laugh is on me.
A woman selling a cosmetic line raved over the state of my skin and asked my secret. I said, "Nothing!" When that did not satisfy, I added, "...and no smoking, no drinking, no suntanning." Her face kind of fell. I guess I won't be called on to sponsor her line of cosmetic products. Genetically speaking, about five generations Canadian, all with roots in the UK. So even pale, delicate skin can wear well if genetics are on our side.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
I just asked you this question: Why do you consider a food with protein, fat, carbohydrates, protein, fiber, niacin, calcium, and riboflavin to be "empty calories"? What support do you have for this beyond "the US government said so"?
Agreed, every food has some nutritional content. But the question is, does the nutrition it contains outweigh the cost calorie-wise? So "empty calorie" foods are ones that have minimal nutritional value in relation to the amount of calories they contain.
Now, your government scientists (again) have made the following recommendation:
"FDA has taken the position that health claims can be used only if a serving of food contains ≥13 g fat, ≥4 g saturated fat, ≥60 mg cholesterol, and ≥960mg Na.
Also, healthy foods should contain ≥10% of daily values per serving for at least one of the
following: protein, calcium, iron, vitamins A and C, and fibre.
Using comparable criteria, the USDA had defined foods of minimum nutritional value as
those that failed to provide 5% of the reference daily intakes per serving for 8 key nutrients: protein, calcium, iron, vitamin A, vitamin C, riboflavin, thiamine, and niacin."
That sounds reasonable to me. Do you disagree with these guidelines?
If not, does your candy bar example qualify as a healthy food under these guidelines?
0 -
Any food qualifies as healthy if it fits into ones goalsChrysalid2014 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
I just asked you this question: Why do you consider a food with protein, fat, carbohydrates, protein, fiber, niacin, calcium, and riboflavin to be "empty calories"? What support do you have for this beyond "the US government said so"?
Agreed, every food has some nutritional content. But the question is, does the nutrition it contains outweigh the cost calorie-wise? So "empty calorie" foods are ones that have minimal nutritional value in relation to the amount of calories they contain.
Now, your government scientists (again) have made the following recommendation:
"FDA has taken the position that health claims can be used only if a serving of food contains ≥13 g fat, ≥4 g saturated fat, ≥60 mg cholesterol, and ≥960mg Na.
Also, healthy foods should contain ≥10% of daily values per serving for at least one of the
following: protein, calcium, iron, vitamins A and C, and fibre.
Using comparable criteria, the USDA had defined foods of minimum nutritional value as
those that failed to provide 5% of the reference daily intakes per serving for 8 key nutrients: protein, calcium, iron, vitamin A, vitamin C, riboflavin, thiamine, and niacin."
That sounds reasonable to me. Do you disagree with these guidelines?
If not, does your candy bar example qualify as a healthy food under these guidelines?
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Uh... ever heard of insulin resistance? Metabolic syndrome? Type 2 diabetes, perhaps?So insulin is bad? There is no positive side to insulin? What about metabolic syndrome? Eating sugar gives you diabetes? Do I have diabetes? How does the glucose in a Snickers metaboloze different than the glucose in fruit?
I didn't make a statement of any kind there, but I agree my question was badly phrased. It should have read: "Is there a connection between type 2 diabetes and diet?"
Regarding your subsequent questions:
1. "So insulin is bad? There is no positive side to insulin?" (I'm assuming this was a joke question)
2. "What about metabolic syndrome?" (Don't understand the question)
3. "Eating sugar gives you diabetes?" (I don't know; that's what I was trying to ascertain with my original question)
4. "Do I have diabetes?" (I have no idea whether you have diabetes or not. Perhaps you should see your doctor if you think you might?)
5. "How does the glucose in a Snickers metaboloze different than the glucose in fruit?" (I believe candy, and fruit, both contain fructose, not glucose, but I could be wrong.)
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »
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.
Candy bars, as my American cousins used to call them, officially fit your own government's definition of "empty calories". So why someone with a stated serious health problem would choose to consume them – unless that person had some kind of psychological dependence (which is in itself unhealthy) – is beyond me.
Astounding logic fail.
Simply astounding.
I've also never stated that my health problems are serious. They're just... health problems.
I think I know who you are now, or you're at least in contact with someone.
Nice ad hominem.
All the venom over 80 calories?
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
I just asked you this question: Why do you consider a food with protein, fat, carbohydrates, protein, fiber, niacin, calcium, and riboflavin to be "empty calories"? What support do you have for this beyond "the US government said so"?
Agreed, every food has some nutritional content. But the question is, does the nutrition it contains outweigh the cost calorie-wise? So "empty calorie" foods are ones that have minimal nutritional value in relation to the amount of calories they contain.
Now, your government scientists (again) have made the following recommendation:
"FDA has taken the position that health claims can be used only if a serving of food contains ≥13 g fat, ≥4 g saturated fat, ≥60 mg cholesterol, and ≥960mg Na.
Also, healthy foods should contain ≥10% of daily values per serving for at least one of the
following: protein, calcium, iron, vitamins A and C, and fibre.
Using comparable criteria, the USDA had defined foods of minimum nutritional value as
those that failed to provide 5% of the reference daily intakes per serving for 8 key nutrients: protein, calcium, iron, vitamin A, vitamin C, riboflavin, thiamine, and niacin."
That sounds reasonable to me. Do you disagree with these guidelines?
If not, does your candy bar example qualify as a healthy food under these guidelines?
I don't agree with the USDA regulations on what can be labelled a healthy food. It's a very political process that is influenced by lobbyists and is based on viewing foods in a vacuum instead of as part of a overall diet. Under these regulations (which are largely meant for packaged food and serve as a marketing aid for food companies), you couldn't call a cup of avocado healthy (too much fat!). Recently, a brand of minimally processed snack bars have been threatened by the FDA because there are too many nuts in their bar to qualify as healthy. It's mumbo-jumbo to sell food.
I regularly eat foods that don't provide 5% of my daily intake for the 8 key nutrients identified by the USDA. I had portobello mushrooms marinated in olive oil for breakfast (with some other things). The mushrooms and olive oil both fail to meet the USDA guidelines for minimal nutritional value. Now I guess you could critique my breakfast, but it was delicious, filling, and I will likely meet my goals for the day (dinner is still undecided and won't be decided until I decide what vegetables look good at the grocery store tonight).
I'm really curious: do you really make your dietary decisions by USDA guidelines? If so, I'm impressed that our bureaucracies inspire such confidence overseas. But I feel like I have to warn you: most of us who deal with them more regularly lack the confidence that you seem to have in them.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
Other posters have asked very pertinent questions about your statement yesterday that everyone should avoid sugar due to three illnesses/disorders. If you review the posts quoting yours, you should be able to find them.
I didn't make a statement yesterday; I asked a question about whether there was any link between the illnesses I mentioned and over-consumption of sugar.
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
I just asked you this question: Why do you consider a food with protein, fat, carbohydrates, protein, fiber, niacin, calcium, and riboflavin to be "empty calories"? What support do you have for this beyond "the US government said so"?
Agreed, every food has some nutritional content. But the question is, does the nutrition it contains outweigh the cost calorie-wise? So "empty calorie" foods are ones that have minimal nutritional value in relation to the amount of calories they contain.
Now, your government scientists (again) have made the following recommendation:
"FDA has taken the position that health claims can be used only if a serving of food contains ≥13 g fat, ≥4 g saturated fat, ≥60 mg cholesterol, and ≥960mg Na.
Also, healthy foods should contain ≥10% of daily values per serving for at least one of the
following: protein, calcium, iron, vitamins A and C, and fibre.
Using comparable criteria, the USDA had defined foods of minimum nutritional value as
those that failed to provide 5% of the reference daily intakes per serving for 8 key nutrients: protein, calcium, iron, vitamin A, vitamin C, riboflavin, thiamine, and niacin."
That sounds reasonable to me. Do you disagree with these guidelines?
If not, does your candy bar example qualify as a healthy food under these guidelines?
"Under revised federal nutrition guidelines for school children, Cheetos has qualified as a 'Smart Snack'."
http://www.sciencetimes.com/articles/5105/20150331/hot-cheetos-meet-federal-guidelines-for-healthy-smart-snack-for-children.htm
Tell me more about your guidelines.
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
Other posters have asked very pertinent questions about your statement yesterday that everyone should avoid sugar due to three illnesses/disorders. If you review the posts quoting yours, you should be able to find them.
I didn't make a statement yesterday; I asked a question about whether there was any link between the illnesses I mentioned and over-consumption of sugar.
Thanks for clarifying that you don't know and were simply asking for the information. Although if you don't know the answer, your opposition to eating sugar makes less sense than it did before.
0 -
Any food qualifies as healthy if it fits into ones goalsChrysalid2014 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
I just asked you this question: Why do you consider a food with protein, fat, carbohydrates, protein, fiber, niacin, calcium, and riboflavin to be "empty calories"? What support do you have for this beyond "the US government said so"?
Agreed, every food has some nutritional content. But the question is, does the nutrition it contains outweigh the cost calorie-wise? So "empty calorie" foods are ones that have minimal nutritional value in relation to the amount of calories they contain.
Now, your government scientists (again) have made the following recommendation:
"FDA has taken the position that health claims can be used only if a serving of food contains ≥13 g fat, ≥4 g saturated fat, ≥60 mg cholesterol, and ≥960mg Na.
Also, healthy foods should contain ≥10% of daily values per serving for at least one of the
following: protein, calcium, iron, vitamins A and C, and fibre.
Using comparable criteria, the USDA had defined foods of minimum nutritional value as
those that failed to provide 5% of the reference daily intakes per serving for 8 key nutrients: protein, calcium, iron, vitamin A, vitamin C, riboflavin, thiamine, and niacin."
That sounds reasonable to me. Do you disagree with these guidelines?
If not, does your candy bar example qualify as a healthy food under these guidelines?
Only if the US government signs off on it first.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »Either that or I just got lucky. I think I just got lucky, but you can go with the Italian theory. I laugh and laugh because I've never used moisturizer and my aunt, a cosmetologist, always used to laugh and tell me how old and wrinkled I was going to look compared to everyone else. Last laugh is on me.
A woman selling a cosmetic line raved over the state of my skin and asked my secret. I said, "Nothing!" When that did not satisfy, I added, "...and no smoking, no drinking, no suntanning." Her face kind of fell. I guess I won't be called on to sponsor her line of cosmetic products. Genetically speaking, about five generations Canadian, all with roots in the UK. So even pale, delicate skin can wear well if genetics are on our side.
There's the kicker. I smoked until I was thirty. I used to drink. And I used to tan. We belong to a swim club and I still get sun in the summer.
Just lucky.
0 -
I don't worry about going over a bit on sugar, especially natural sugars. As long as you are still creating a deficit, it won't affect weight loss either way.0
-
janejellyroll wrote: »
I'm really curious: do you really make your dietary decisions by USDA guidelines? If so, I'm impressed that our bureaucracies inspire such confidence overseas. But I feel like I have to warn you: most of us who deal with them more regularly lack the confidence that you seem to have in them.
Ha ha – OK, you're right: your government's guidelines are crap! But the idea of defining a "healthy" food by using some set parameters is a good one. Just to say "it fits in my calories and has some nutrients" therefore it's good, doesn't seem to be a very good definition. By that definition you could eat a lump of coal and consider it healthy.0 -
-
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
I just asked you this question: Why do you consider a food with protein, fat, carbohydrates, protein, fiber, niacin, calcium, and riboflavin to be "empty calories"? What support do you have for this beyond "the US government said so"?
Agreed, every food has some nutritional content. But the question is, does the nutrition it contains outweigh the cost calorie-wise? So "empty calorie" foods are ones that have minimal nutritional value in relation to the amount of calories they contain.
Now, your government scientists (again) have made the following recommendation:
"FDA has taken the position that health claims can be used only if a serving of food contains ≥13 g fat, ≥4 g saturated fat, ≥60 mg cholesterol, and ≥960mg Na.
Also, healthy foods should contain ≥10% of daily values per serving for at least one of the
following: protein, calcium, iron, vitamins A and C, and fibre.
Using comparable criteria, the USDA had defined foods of minimum nutritional value as
those that failed to provide 5% of the reference daily intakes per serving for 8 key nutrients: protein, calcium, iron, vitamin A, vitamin C, riboflavin, thiamine, and niacin."
That sounds reasonable to me. Do you disagree with these guidelines?
If not, does your candy bar example qualify as a healthy food under these guidelines?
please find me the one person that just eats candy bars 100% of the time, and then we can have a discussion ..
as no one that I am aware of is consuming 100% candy bars, then you would have to look at the overall diet of this person that eats a snickers bar ….
I dont understand why this concept is so hard to grasp ...0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
I'm really curious: do you really make your dietary decisions by USDA guidelines? If so, I'm impressed that our bureaucracies inspire such confidence overseas. But I feel like I have to warn you: most of us who deal with them more regularly lack the confidence that you seem to have in them.
Ha ha – OK, you're right: your government's guidelines are crap! But the idea of defining a "healthy" food by using some set parameters is a good one. Just to say "it fits in my calories and has some nutrients" therefore it's good, doesn't seem to be a very good definition. By that definition you could eat a lump of coal and consider it healthy.
again straw man, as no one is making that ridiculous assertion.
0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
Thanks for clarifying that you don't know and were simply asking for the information. Although if you don't know the answer, your opposition to eating sugar makes less sense than it did before.
It makes sense in support of the idea that those on restricted calorie diets should restrict their intake to nutrient-dense foods, not high-calorie foods that contain some negligible amount of nutrition. Dare I say the words "common sense" could be applied here?
In fact, this whole discussion started because some poor newcomer made an innocuous statement about making a healthy choice to eat fruit instead of candy bars, which was immediately leapt upon...
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
I'm really curious: do you really make your dietary decisions by USDA guidelines? If so, I'm impressed that our bureaucracies inspire such confidence overseas. But I feel like I have to warn you: most of us who deal with them more regularly lack the confidence that you seem to have in them.
Ha ha – OK, you're right: your government's guidelines are crap! But the idea of defining a "healthy" food by using some set parameters is a good one. Just to say "it fits in my calories and has some nutrients" therefore it's good, doesn't seem to be a very good definition. By that definition you could eat a lump of coal and consider it healthy.
If the guidelines are so terrible, why are you using them to argue that someone shouldn't have 80 calories of Snickers? You were the one who brought the guidelines into it -- what are you now using to support your claim that these 80 calories will be harmful?
"It fits in my calorie goal and it has nutrients" is actually a pretty good start to making the decision to include a food in one's diet (other factors include: "Do I like the taste?", "Do I have a medical reason not to eat it?", and "How does it fit with the other food choices I am making today?").
What would you ask instead of "Does it fit in my calorie goal and have nutrients?"0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 415 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions