Questions about sugar
Replies
-
This content has been removed.
-
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »mamapeach910 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.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »
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.
0 -
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.janejellyroll wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »
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.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
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.jofjltncb6 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
I didn't think a rounded 25% of my daily calories via fat was "so low."jofjltncb6 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
It is low on workout days. It's 58g on non-workout days.jofjltncb6 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
I think you are wrong here. As luck would have it, this is part of my planned menu for tomorrow.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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
0 -
azulvioleta6 wrote: »azulvioleta6 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »azulvioleta6 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???0 -
herrspoons wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »mamapeach910 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….0 -
azulvioleta6 wrote: »azulvioleta6 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »azulvioleta6 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?0 -
azulvioleta6 wrote: »azulvioleta6 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »azulvioleta6 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?
Her wrinkle free skin is because of the food she eats. Yours is because of genetics of course....
You know how the logic is around here...
0 -
azulvioleta6 wrote: »azulvioleta6 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »azulvioleta6 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?
Her wrinkle free skin is because of the food she eats. Yours is because of genetics of course....
You know how the logic is around here...
mfp logic = illogical ridiculousness
I believe that is the formula….0 -
This content has been removed.
-
azulvioleta6 wrote: »azulvioleta6 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »azulvioleta6 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?
Her wrinkle free skin is because of the food she eats. Yours is because of genetics of course....
You know how the logic is around here...
She's going to be 40 with no wrinkles. 40 is NOTHING.
Let me share a tale of two sisters. First, my family background. I'm of Italian-English-German ancestry.
I'm 52, and I got the Italian skin. I have no wrinkles.
My sister is 50, and she got the English skin. She has wrinkles.
We both really like ice cream.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »azulvioleta6 wrote: »azulvioleta6 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »azulvioleta6 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?
Her wrinkle free skin is because of the food she eats. Yours is because of genetics of course....
You know how the logic is around here...
She's going to be 40 with no wrinkles. 40 is NOTHING.
Let me share a tale of two sisters. First, my family background. I'm of Italian-English-German ancestry.
I'm 52, and I got the Italian skin. I have no wrinkles.
My sister is 50, and she got the English skin. She has wrinkles.
We both really like ice cream.
so italians are immune to the aging affects of ice cream, and english people are not???
good to know since i am 75% italian…. 0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »azulvioleta6 wrote: »azulvioleta6 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »azulvioleta6 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?
Her wrinkle free skin is because of the food she eats. Yours is because of genetics of course....
You know how the logic is around here...
She's going to be 40 with no wrinkles. 40 is NOTHING.
Let me share a tale of two sisters. First, my family background. I'm of Italian-English-German ancestry.
I'm 52, and I got the Italian skin. I have no wrinkles.
My sister is 50, and she got the English skin. She has wrinkles.
We both really like ice cream.
so italians are immune to the aging affects of ice cream, and english people are not???
good to know since i am 75% italian….
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.
0 -
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.
0 -
"Our" own government can't even pick a side on whether eggs are good or bad, or whether dietary cholesterol meaningfully affects blood cholesterol, so I'm not sure they're the guys I'd want to depend on for dietary questions.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.
I mean, hell, "our" government defines growing your own wheat as interstate commerce and tomatoes as vegetables, so their defining skills are demonstrably poor.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.
They contain fat, carbohydrates, protein, fiber, calcium, niacin, and riboflavin. But we should consider them "empty" because the government says so?
Okay.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
0 -
-
Chrysalid2014 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"?
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.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
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
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions