Questions about sugar

Options
1131416181921

Replies

  • Chrysalid2014
    Chrysalid2014 Posts: 1,038 Member
    Options

    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).


  • laura3977
    laura3977 Posts: 191 Member
    Options
    maidentl wrote: »
    zyxst wrote: »
    I'll take the Snickers that's being bandied about.

    It's not even my favorite candy bar but I kinda want one now. :laugh:

    It's totally my favorite (frozen of course!) and I'm definitely getting one! :smile:
  • PeachyCarol
    PeachyCarol Posts: 8,029 Member
    Options
    MrM27 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.

  • DeguelloTex
    DeguelloTex Posts: 6,652 Member
    Options

    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).

    How about you answer the actual question posed, now?

  • maidentl
    maidentl Posts: 3,203 Member
    Options
    laura3977 wrote: »
    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.
  • PeachyCarol
    PeachyCarol Posts: 8,029 Member
    Options

    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.

  • Chrysalid2014
    Chrysalid2014 Posts: 1,038 Member
    Options
    Hornsby 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).
  • jofjltncb6
    jofjltncb6 Posts: 34,415 Member
    Options
    ndj1979 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.)
  • jgnatca
    jgnatca Posts: 14,464 Member
    Options
    Sugars 201:
    1345459559_Apple-Nutrition-Facts-1024x685.jpg
    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.
  • DeguelloTex
    DeguelloTex Posts: 6,652 Member
    Options
    Hornsby 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).
    In case you've forgotten:

    teph0y7mojyx.png


  • Chrysalid2014
    Chrysalid2014 Posts: 1,038 Member
    edited April 2015
    Options
    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.
  • PeachyCarol
    PeachyCarol Posts: 8,029 Member
    Options
    Hornsby 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.

  • DeguelloTex
    DeguelloTex Posts: 6,652 Member
    Options
    No one is asking about nutrient density. Stop with the straw man holocaust.
  • maidentl
    maidentl Posts: 3,203 Member
    Options
    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.
  • PeachyCarol
    PeachyCarol Posts: 8,029 Member
    Options
    maidentl wrote: »
    laura3977 wrote: »
    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.

  • Chrysalid2014
    Chrysalid2014 Posts: 1,038 Member
    Options
    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!


  • DeguelloTex
    DeguelloTex Posts: 6,652 Member
    Options
    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!

    No, we're talking about the nutrients of particular foods as they fit into larger caloric and nutritional goals.

    So, can you answer my question now?
  • Chrysalid2014
    Chrysalid2014 Posts: 1,038 Member
    Options

    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?