Questions about sugar
Replies
-
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.
No. That's a false statement.0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »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!
Did you consider what he might have eaten the rest of the day?
Does every individual food you eat meet your macro balance goals in specific proportion?
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
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?
Heh. Indeed. I was doing 1950 for a while (I'm now back to 1850), and was actually having trouble meeting my carb goal. (Not worried about it, though.)
Another thing is that because there's often no reason to increase protein and fat goals as you increase calories (assuming they are based on your body weight), when someone has a higher limit they may have a higher percentage of desired carbs also.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
No. That's a false statement.
No. It isn't a false statement.0 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »I'm not focused solely on weight loss...but I also don't believe that "too much sugar" is the primary cause of the problem. I believe it is excess calories (from all sources) and decreased activity resulting in a caloric surplus that leads to obesity and a host of related health problems.
And yet much of my diet is "processed".
As for your comment on the "several IIFYM people. . .look older" comment, perhaps this is more your perception bias than anything meaningful...
...because I think the good looking actual current pictures of the "IIFYM people" look a lot better than the cartoons, pets, and inspirational quotes I've noticed are incredibly popular among so many of the "don't eat crap" proponents.
Or perhaps it's the wisdom of actual years of experience and education that lead to their positions on the topic vs the youthful exuberance of the relatively younger ones pushing "processed = bad".
<<< Dude? Although, truthfully, I agree - don't eat crap. Eat food.
0 -
Apparently everything we eat has to be completely balanced. Don't ever eat an apple because the carbs are too high while the fat and protein count is low to non existent.
Apples are nutrient-dense. Candy bars are not.
Whether something is nutrient dense is expressed by calculating the amount of nutrients in proportion to the number of calories in a serving/set weight.
People on restricted calorie diets, e.g. the original poster, would do well to choose nutrient dense foods, e.g. fruits, in preference to 'empty-calorie' foods such as candy.
That is all.
0 -
ensure you are under your calorie goal and you'll be fine. It is important to have a balanced diet0
-
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!
Nope, the discussion has been about sugar.
Specifically, the claim that seems to have gotten you all excited was OP's statement that it's good that she's eating sugar from fruit and not the artificial sugar in a Snickers (or some such) and then people asking why the sugar in a Snickers is so terrible.
Obviously the fruit has more nutrients (although not all the nutrients one needs, and the Snickers has some the fruit doesn't).
Then you went off on some odd tangent about how eating even a 80 calorie Snickers within the context of a diet designed for weight loss is supposedly disapproved of by the US gov't, which is not true. (And I've been able to lose weight in the past at 1850, so that's 4% of my calories, roughly, and anyway the US gov't doesn't think I need to lose weight--or at least they haven't told me so!--I'm just motivated by vanity at this point.
(For the record, I'm currently procrastinating dealing with my horrible tax return.)0 -
This content has been removed.
-
jofjltncb6 wrote: »I'm not focused solely on weight loss...but I also don't believe that "too much sugar" is the primary cause of the problem. I believe it is excess calories (from all sources) and decreased activity resulting in a caloric surplus that leads to obesity and a host of related health problems.
And yet much of my diet is "processed".
As for your comment on the "several IIFYM people. . .look older" comment, perhaps this is more your perception bias than anything meaningful...
...because I think the good looking actual current pictures of the "IIFYM people" look a lot better than the cartoons, pets, and inspirational quotes I've noticed are incredibly popular among so many of the "don't eat crap" proponents.
Or perhaps it's the wisdom of actual years of experience and education that lead to their positions on the topic vs the youthful exuberance of the relatively younger ones pushing "processed = bad".
<<< Dude? Although, truthfully, I agree - don't eat crap. Eat food.
Who's a good boy?
Yes you are!
Yes you are!0 -
So my cutting calories are 1950 will it take the entire 1950 calories to get in my nutrients? Is it possible for me to reach my nutrient requirements with 1700 calories?
I have no idea what your nutrient requirements are, but your comment raises another question. Research has shown that reducing calories to below the recommended daily intake leads to better health and longevity. In other words, they are suggesting if you want to live long and be healthy, don't squander those extra 250 calories (if they are indeed extra) on candy.
But we shall have to save that discussion for another day, as I'm off for the evening now. Night night all!0 -
Today the components of my breakfast I think, would do a hipster proud. 100% natural probiotic yogurt, chia, pumpkin, walnuts, blueberries, and puffed millet. Pumpernickel and "no sugar, no salt added" peanut butter. It was delish. (Of course, there's a hipster born every minute that could "improve" on this. I am obviously unconcerned about the intimate daily molestation of dairy cows, and hydrogenation...please? Just because I don't like lumpy peanut butter?)
For morning snack, an all-white Betty Crocker cupcake with low-fat dream whip.
But in context of the overall diet.....0 -
When this thread inevitably gets nuked, can we get a gif of a snickers bar turning into a nuclear explosion?0
-
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »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!
Could you explain this, because it makes no sense to me.
The only nutrients that you are looking at are the macros, and all you've showed is that the Snickers contributes little protein and slightly more carbs and lots of fat when looked at as a percentage of the total goals. But what does that mean? Why does it supposedly count against the Snickers bar?
Let's assume I eat one 80 calorie Snickers. For me, the numbers are:
Calories: 4.3%
Carbs: 9.3%
Fat: 16%
Protein: 2.2%
So is that supposed to be bad because it contributes little of my protein needs? What if I told you that my protein is always well over what I need (given my weight) and so I don't stress about it--does that matter? What if my fat were usually on the low side (it's not, but I also have no great desire to eat the Snickers and might be more likely to do so in a day where my fat were low, as I find fat satiating, and back when I ate Snickers I always found it a candy bar that was filling beyond most, and that makes some logical sense.
Beyond that, however, why is not having a perfectly proportional contribution of macros supposed to be bad. Based on your own (odd) analysis, olive oil and a 150 gram apple (pretty small, IME) score as poorly or worse than the Snickers:
Olive oil (tbsp.)
Calories: 6.4%
Carbs: 0
Fat: 22.6% (uh, oh, guess the olive oil is terrible, then!)
Protein: 0
Apple (150 grams)
Calories: 4.2%
Carbs: 11.4% (in this carb-phobic world, oh, dear! that's disproportionate!)
Fat: 0
Protein: 00 -
This content has been removed.
-
mamapeach910 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »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!
Did you consider what he might have eaten the rest of the day?
Does every individual food you eat meet your macro balance goals in specific proportion?
Apparently everything we eat has to be completely balanced. Don't ever eat an apple because the carbs are too high while the fat and protein count is low to non existent.
Ack! I came up with the apple comparison idea before you posted, but it took me way to long to complete it. Not copying!0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
So my cutting calories are 1950 will it take the entire 1950 calories to get in my nutrients? Is it possible for me to reach my nutrient requirements with 1700 calories?
I have no idea what your nutrient requirements are, but your comment raises another question. Research has shown that reducing calories to below the recommended daily intake leads to better health and longevity. In other words, they are suggesting if you want to live long and be healthy, don't squander those extra 250 calories (if they are indeed extra) on candy.
But we shall have to save that discussion for another day, as I'm off for the evening now. Night night all!
[yoovieblink.gif]0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
No. That's a false statement.
No. It isn't a false statement.
Since no one was criticized for wanting to eat fruit instead of candy (and you must know that, because I can't believe anyone is that poor a reader), then yes it is!0 -
This content has been removed.
-
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).
But the person on the lower calorie diet has also stated that she will choose the "fun size" version. Which only has 80 calories. (first grade reading comprehension).0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »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!
You realize that just restating your point isn't the same thing as proving it, right?0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
Apparently everything we eat has to be completely balanced. Don't ever eat an apple because the carbs are too high while the fat and protein count is low to non existent.
Apples are nutrient-dense. Candy bars are not.
Whether something is nutrient dense is expressed by calculating the amount of nutrients in proportion to the number of calories in a serving/set weight.
People on restricted calorie diets, e.g. the original poster, would do well to choose nutrient dense foods, e.g. fruits, in preference to 'empty-calorie' foods such as candy.
That is all.
I'll ask again because you have never answered: Assuming the overall diet meets nutrient needs, why should those on restricted calorie diets make 100% of their food "nutrient dense"? Are you just going to repeat your argument or can you actually demonstrate your point?0 -
This content has been removed.
-
HeatherZousel wrote: »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.HeatherZousel wrote: »I don't look at my life in absolutes like that anymore. I used to. But then I didn't have a real healthy relationship with food. Nor does your body have a clock that resets at midnight. If I eat a kale salad, then 4 hours later I eat a Snickers bar, that does not eliminate the healthy effects of the kale. The kale was still healthy. If I am trying to lose weight, however, the snickers wasn't the best choice I could have made. There are lots of reasons I feel that way. Partly the simple carbs, but also because I don't believe processed foods are the best option for health. I think you should try to eat as close to natural foods as possible. That means no soy lecithin, or corn syrup.
I'm fairly shocked - unless I missed it - that nobody picked up on these gems.
For those playing at home: fruit = (almost always) simple carbs.
Unless, of course, you meant that you prefer simple carbs to complex carbs. (I certainly hope that I didn't - although I expect I did - just give you an "out.")
0 -
-
I think Chrysalid2014 is little hangry, according to her diary.
For someone who keeps talking about nutrition, she hardly meets her nutrition.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 423 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions