Questions about sugar
Replies
-
This content has been removed.
-
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...
Correction: that should read 22% of carbs (typo).
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »Her statement was so vague that three of us took it to mean 3 different things. Too funny.
When you think about it that's actually pretty clever. Be ad vague as possible with flat logic so when someone proves you wrong you can just flop sides so you're never actually back tracking.
Well, it would be clever (were it actually done with real purpose), except I think the three of us covered all the bases. Nowhere to turn at this point.
0 -
How about you answer the actual question posed, now?Chrysalid2014 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...
Correction: that should read 22% of carbs (typo).
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.
Yes! And they do the very thing that they claim the other side is doing and don't even see it. No one is saying you should eat a Snickers, we're all saying you can. And yet they accuse everyone of pushing candy over fruit, all the while insisting that no one should eat candy because they think it's bad. And yes, I realize that most of us don't need it spelled out like this but maybe one of these absolutists might have a light bulb moment if I do.
0 -
Chrysalid2014 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...
Correction: that should read 22% of carbs (typo).
Instead of correcting the typo for what it would represent of your strawman, why don't you answer what's wrong with it in the context of Dequello's diet?
You know, the actual question.
Also, if you want to do calculations on what I'd eat, do calculations for a FUN SIZED Snickers. They're 80 calories.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »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.
It's 13% of his calories actually, and 7% of yours for the fun-size (grade six math again).
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 ...
(And yet I still maintain that a diet of 100% candy bars is far superior to a diet of 100% broccoli or 100% kale.)0 -
Sugars 201:
Glucose, 2.3g Fructose, 7.6g, Sucrose, 3.3g
A similar portion of hard candy would be 28g, or four pieces. Total, 18g of sugar. Depending on the product, it may include HFCS, but I haven't found a breakdown of the sugars in hard candy.
https://scienceandfooducla.wordpress.com/2014/10/28/sugar-chemistry-of-hard-candies/
A Snickers fun size is 34g, 17g of sugar. Sugars include Sucrose, Lactose, and Corn syrup.0 -
In case you've forgotten:Chrysalid2014 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »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.
It's 13% of his calories actually, and 7% of yours for the fun-size (grade six math again).
0 -
It seems you all fail to understand that whether or not an item of food is 'nutrient dense' has nothing to do with the number of daily allocated calories in a person's diet. It's solely to do with the amount of nutrients within the item proportional to the number of calories it contains.
So, you can make the calculation for any size Snickers you want, or any daily number of calories. The proportions of nutrients within the item don't change.
If you're trying to gain weight or you're on a large number of calories, it doesn't matter so much if your foods are nutrient dense. If you're on restricted calories then it's common sense to try to get the maximum number of nutrients per calorie.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »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.
It's 13% of his calories actually, and 7% of yours for the fun-size (grade six math again).
Well, I rounded down (not feeling well) sin of sins, but since my calories are actually 1240, that comes to .064... which does properly round to 6%.
As for Dequello, yes, you're right. I looked at the wrong number on his phone.
However, it still doesn't change the fact that you were wrong in saying that the percentages would be the same.
It still doesn't change the fact that you're not answering the question.
0 -
No one is asking about nutrient density. Stop with the straw man holocaust.0
-
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »It seems you all fail to understand that whether or not an item of food is 'nutrient dense' has nothing to do with the number of daily allocated calories in a person's diet. It's solely to do with the amount of nutrients within the item proportional to the number of calories it contains.
So, you can make the calculation for any size Snickers you want, or any daily number of calories. The proportions of nutrients within the item don't change.
We don't "fail to understand," we disagree. As has been stated numerous times, most people here think that food should be looked at in the context of your overall diet, not in isolation.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.
Yes! And they do the very thing that they claim the other side is doing and don't even see it. No one is saying you should eat a Snickers, we're all saying you can. And yet they accuse everyone of pushing candy over fruit, all the while insisting that no one should eat candy because they think it's bad. And yes, I realize that most of us don't need it spelled out like this but maybe one of these absolutists might have a light bulb moment if I do.
Yup. I LOVE my raspberries and yogurt. I eat it just about every day.
I don't get what the anti-sugar people don't get about having everything in your diet including vegetables, fruit, protein... and candy.
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »No one is asking about nutrient density. Stop with the straw man holocaust.
We're ENTIRELY talking about nutrient density. That's what we're talking about!
0 -
No, we're talking about the nutrients of particular foods as they fit into larger caloric and nutritional goals.Chrysalid2014 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »No one is asking about nutrient density. Stop with the straw man holocaust.
We're ENTIRELY talking about nutrient density. That's what we're talking about!
So, can you answer my question now?
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »
However, it still doesn't change the fact that you were wrong in saying that the percentages would be the same.
It still doesn't change the fact that you're not answering the question.
I said the percentages would be IN THE SAME PROPORTION TO ONE ANOTHER. Not "the same".
Do you really, really want me to do the calculations for you?
0 -
I really, really want you to answer my question.Chrysalid2014 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »
However, it still doesn't change the fact that you were wrong in saying that the percentages would be the same.
It still doesn't change the fact that you're not answering the question.
I said the percentages would be IN THE SAME PROPORTION TO ONE ANOTHER. Not "the same".
Do you really, really want me to do the calculations for you?
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »It seems you all fail to understand that whether or not an item of food is 'nutrient dense' has nothing to do with the number of daily allocated calories in a person's diet. It's solely to do with the amount of nutrients within the item proportional to the number of calories it contains.
So, you can make the calculation for any size Snickers you want, or any daily number of calories. The proportions of nutrients within the item don't change.
If you're trying to gain weight or you're on a large number of calories, it doesn't matter so much if your foods are nutrient dense. If you're on restricted calories then it's common sense to try to get the maximum number of nutrients per calorie.
Gibberish. Pure gibberish.
And "proportions of nutrients within the item"? What?
THE ITEM HAS NUTRIENTS. Your body will use them.
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »No one is asking about nutrient density. Stop with the straw man holocaust.
We're ENTIRELY talking about nutrient density. That's what we're talking about!
You are talking about a food in isolation.
WE are talking about TOTAL diet.
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »
However, it still doesn't change the fact that you were wrong in saying that the percentages would be the same.
It still doesn't change the fact that you're not answering the question.
I said the percentages would be IN THE SAME PROPORTION TO ONE ANOTHER. Not "the same".
Do you really, really want me to do the calculations for you?
Yes please. Tell me how 6% and 12% are the same.
Why don't you answer Deguello?
0 -
And seriously people... let's drop the snickers crap. This is getting ridiculous. You know what I mean. No need to be rude. We all love snickers bars. But if they were so dang healthy... none of us would be on this site trying to lose weight or be healthier. There's something beneficial in everything we eat. Doesn't mean they are healthy. Man... so much for asking a question & trying to find out if others are having the same issue as I am. Thank you though to the people NOT be RUDE.
You know what's weird? I eat chocolate and ice cream and I'm pretty damn healthy. Stop projecting.
Snickers Ice Cream Bars!! BOOM! So much delicious all in one little bar! I shall go get one now. Ta Ta!
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
I have had some struggles with my sugar going slightly over as well due to the fruit I eat. Glad to hear I'm not the only one, and that it is not an issue. Thanks..0
-
DeguelloTex wrote: »
I really, really want you to answer my question.Chrysalid2014 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »
However, it still doesn't change the fact that you were wrong in saying that the percentages would be the same.
It still doesn't change the fact that you're not answering the question.
I said the percentages would be IN THE SAME PROPORTION TO ONE ANOTHER. Not "the same".
Do you really, really want me to do the calculations for you?
Here you go. Your macros are significantly different than the default MFP ones but even so the cost calorie wise of this item does not equate to the nutirional benefits.
Calories 13%
Carbs 18%
Fat 34%
Protein 2%
Now, if your macros were set up so that you were on a low protein, high sugar, low fibre diet candy would be the perfect food for you!
0 -
0 -
This content has been removed.
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.8K Introduce Yourself
- 44K Getting Started
- 260.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.2K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 444 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.2K Motivation and Support
- 8.2K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4.1K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 1.3K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.8K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions