Questions about sugar

Chrysalid2014 wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

I just asked you this question: Why do you consider a food with protein, fat, carbohydrates, protein, fiber, niacin, calcium, and riboflavin to be "empty calories"? What support do you have for this beyond "the US government said so"?

Agreed, every food has some nutritional content. But the question is, does the nutrition it contains outweigh the cost calorie-wise? So "empty calorie" foods are ones that have minimal nutritional value in relation to the amount of calories they contain.

Now, your government scientists (again) have made the following recommendation:

"FDA has taken the position that health claims can be used only if a serving of food contains ≥13 g fat, ≥4 g saturated fat, ≥60 mg cholesterol, and ≥960mg Na.

Also, healthy foods should contain ≥10% of daily values per serving for at least one of the
following: protein, calcium, iron, vitamins A and C, and fibre.

Using comparable criteria, the USDA had defined foods of minimum nutritional value as
those that failed to provide 5% of the reference daily intakes per serving for 8 key nutrients: protein, calcium, iron, vitamin A, vitamin C, riboflavin, thiamine, and niacin."

That sounds reasonable to me. Do you disagree with these guidelines?

If not, does your candy bar example qualify as a healthy food under these guidelines?

I don't agree with the USDA regulations on what can be labelled a healthy food. It's a very political process that is influenced by lobbyists and is based on viewing foods in a vacuum instead of as part of a overall diet. Under these regulations (which are largely meant for packaged food and serve as a marketing aid for food companies), you couldn't call a cup of avocado healthy (too much fat!). Recently, a brand of minimally processed snack bars have been threatened by the FDA because there are too many nuts in their bar to qualify as healthy. It's mumbo-jumbo to sell food.

I regularly eat foods that don't provide 5% of my daily intake for the 8 key nutrients identified by the USDA. I had portobello mushrooms marinated in olive oil for breakfast (with some other things). The mushrooms and olive oil both fail to meet the USDA guidelines for minimal nutritional value. Now I guess you could critique my breakfast, but it was delicious, filling, and I will likely meet my goals for the day (dinner is still undecided and won't be decided until I decide what vegetables look good at the grocery store tonight).

I'm really curious: do you really make your dietary decisions by USDA guidelines? If so, I'm impressed that our bureaucracies inspire such confidence overseas. But I feel like I have to warn you: most of us who deal with them more regularly lack the confidence that you seem to have in them.

janejellyroll wrote: »

Other posters have asked very pertinent questions about your statement yesterday that everyone should avoid sugar due to three illnesses/disorders. If you review the posts quoting yours, you should be able to find them.

I didn't make a statement yesterday; I asked a question about whether there was any link between the illnesses I mentioned and over-consumption of sugar.

DeguelloTex

Chrysalid2014 wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

I just asked you this question: Why do you consider a food with protein, fat, carbohydrates, protein, fiber, niacin, calcium, and riboflavin to be "empty calories"? What support do you have for this beyond "the US government said so"?

Agreed, every food has some nutritional content. But the question is, does the nutrition it contains outweigh the cost calorie-wise? So "empty calorie" foods are ones that have minimal nutritional value in relation to the amount of calories they contain.

Now, your government scientists (again) have made the following recommendation:

"FDA has taken the position that health claims can be used only if a serving of food contains ≥13 g fat, ≥4 g saturated fat, ≥60 mg cholesterol, and ≥960mg Na.

Also, healthy foods should contain ≥10% of daily values per serving for at least one of the
following: protein, calcium, iron, vitamins A and C, and fibre.

Using comparable criteria, the USDA had defined foods of minimum nutritional value as
those that failed to provide 5% of the reference daily intakes per serving for 8 key nutrients: protein, calcium, iron, vitamin A, vitamin C, riboflavin, thiamine, and niacin."

That sounds reasonable to me. Do you disagree with these guidelines?

If not, does your candy bar example qualify as a healthy food under these guidelines?

"Under revised federal nutrition guidelines for school children, Cheetos has qualified as a 'Smart Snack'."

http://www.sciencetimes.com/articles/5105/20150331/hot-cheetos-meet-federal-guidelines-for-healthy-smart-snack-for-children.htm

Tell me more about your guidelines.

Chrysalid2014 wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

Other posters have asked very pertinent questions about your statement yesterday that everyone should avoid sugar due to three illnesses/disorders. If you review the posts quoting yours, you should be able to find them.

I didn't make a statement yesterday; I asked a question about whether there was any link between the illnesses I mentioned and over-consumption of sugar.

Thanks for clarifying that you don't know and were simply asking for the information. Although if you don't know the answer, your opposition to eating sugar makes less sense than it did before.

jkwolly wrote: »

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?

Any food qualifies as healthy if it fits into ones goals

Only if the US government signs off on it first.

PeachyCarol

jgnatca wrote: »

mamapeach910 wrote: »

Either that or I just got lucky. I think I just got lucky, but you can go with the Italian theory. I laugh and laugh because I've never used moisturizer and my aunt, a cosmetologist, always used to laugh and tell me how old and wrinkled I was going to look compared to everyone else. Last laugh is on me.

A woman selling a cosmetic line raved over the state of my skin and asked my secret. I said, "Nothing!" When that did not satisfy, I added, "...and no smoking, no drinking, no suntanning." Her face kind of fell. I guess I won't be called on to sponsor her line of cosmetic products. Genetically speaking, about five generations Canadian, all with roots in the UK. So even pale, delicate skin can wear well if genetics are on our side.

There's the kicker. I smoked until I was thirty. I used to drink. And I used to tan. We belong to a swim club and I still get sun in the summer.

Just lucky.

Lexicpt

I don't worry about going over a bit on sugar, especially natural sugars. As long as you are still creating a deficit, it won't affect weight loss either way.

janejellyroll wrote: »

I'm really curious: do you really make your dietary decisions by USDA guidelines? If so, I'm impressed that our bureaucracies inspire such confidence overseas. But I feel like I have to warn you: most of us who deal with them more regularly lack the confidence that you seem to have in them.

Ha ha – OK, you're right: your government's guidelines are crap! But the idea of defining a "healthy" food by using some set parameters is a good one. Just to say "it fits in my calories and has some nutrients" therefore it's good, doesn't seem to be a very good definition. By that definition you could eat a lump of coal and consider it healthy.

DeguelloTex

Lexicpt wrote: »

I don't worry about going over a bit on sugar, especially natural sugars. As long as you are still creating a deficit, it won't affect weight loss either way.

What do you consider unnatural sugar?

ndj1979

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 ...

ndj1979

Lexicpt wrote: »

I don't worry about going over a bit on sugar, especially natural sugars. As long as you are still creating a deficit, it won't affect weight loss either way.

what would unnatural sugar be???

ndj1979

Chrysalid2014 wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

I'm really curious: do you really make your dietary decisions by USDA guidelines? If so, I'm impressed that our bureaucracies inspire such confidence overseas. But I feel like I have to warn you: most of us who deal with them more regularly lack the confidence that you seem to have in them.

Ha ha – OK, you're right: your government's guidelines are crap! But the idea of defining a "healthy" food by using some set parameters is a good one. Just to say "it fits in my calories and has some nutrients" therefore it's good, doesn't seem to be a very good definition. By that definition you could eat a lump of coal and consider it healthy.

again straw man, as no one is making that ridiculous assertion.

janejellyroll wrote: »

Thanks for clarifying that you don't know and were simply asking for the information. Although if you don't know the answer, your opposition to eating sugar makes less sense than it did before.

It makes sense in support of the idea that those on restricted calorie diets should restrict their intake to nutrient-dense foods, not high-calorie foods that contain some negligible amount of nutrition. Dare I say the words "common sense" could be applied here?

In fact, this whole discussion started because some poor newcomer made an innocuous statement about making a healthy choice to eat fruit instead of candy bars, which was immediately leapt upon...

Chrysalid2014 wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

I'm really curious: do you really make your dietary decisions by USDA guidelines? If so, I'm impressed that our bureaucracies inspire such confidence overseas. But I feel like I have to warn you: most of us who deal with them more regularly lack the confidence that you seem to have in them.

Ha ha – OK, you're right: your government's guidelines are crap! But the idea of defining a "healthy" food by using some set parameters is a good one. Just to say "it fits in my calories and has some nutrients" therefore it's good, doesn't seem to be a very good definition. By that definition you could eat a lump of coal and consider it healthy.

If the guidelines are so terrible, why are you using them to argue that someone shouldn't have 80 calories of Snickers? You were the one who brought the guidelines into it -- what are you now using to support your claim that these 80 calories will be harmful?

"It fits in my calorie goal and it has nutrients" is actually a pretty good start to making the decision to include a food in one's diet (other factors include: "Do I like the taste?", "Do I have a medical reason not to eat it?", and "How does it fit with the other food choices I am making today?").

What would you ask instead of "Does it fit in my calorie goal and have nutrients?"

This content has been removed.

Lexicpt

DeguelloTex wrote: »

What do you consider unnatural sugar?

The opposite of natural sugar is added sugar to me. I wouldn't call it unnatural. OP stated most of her sugars come from fructose. I guess I consider that a good thing.

PeachyCarol

Chrysalid2014 wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

I'm really curious: do you really make your dietary decisions by USDA guidelines? If so, I'm impressed that our bureaucracies inspire such confidence overseas. But I feel like I have to warn you: most of us who deal with them more regularly lack the confidence that you seem to have in them.

Ha ha – OK, you're right: your government's guidelines are crap! But the idea of defining a "healthy" food by using some set parameters is a good one. Just to say "it fits in my calories and has some nutrients" therefore it's good, doesn't seem to be a very good definition. By that definition you could eat a lump of coal and consider it healthy.

Your premise is fundamentally flawed, because you're considering foods in isolation. One food choice is not going to determine the nutritional value of a person's overall intake.

Someone's diet has to be examined in full to make any determination on its relative "healthiness".

DeguelloTex

Chrysalid2014 wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

Thanks for clarifying that you don't know and were simply asking for the information. Although if you don't know the answer, your opposition to eating sugar makes less sense than it did before.

It makes sense in support of the idea that those on restricted calorie diets should restrict their intake to nutrient-dense foods, not high-calorie foods that contain some negligible amount of nutrition. Dare I say the words "common sense" could be applied here?

Tell me why "common sense" says this dessert is a problem:

This content has been removed.

Chrysalid2014 wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

Thanks for clarifying that you don't know and were simply asking for the information. Although if you don't know the answer, your opposition to eating sugar makes less sense than it did before.

It makes sense in support of the idea that those on restricted calorie diets should restrict their intake to nutrient-dense foods, not high-calorie foods that contain some negligible amount of nutrition. Dare I say the words "common sense" could be applied here?

In fact, this whole discussion started because some poor newcomer made an innocuous statement about making a healthy choice to eat fruit instead of candy bars, which was immediately leapt upon...

If nutritional goals for the day are met, what is the benefit of eating only nutrient-dense foods? It isn't as if those foods suck the value out of the rest of the foods that are chosen. A teaspoon of sugar in coffee, a piece of candy, a few ounces of wine, a little extra oil on roasted vegetables or salad -- what harm are these going to do?

This content has been removed.

MrM27 wrote: »

Wow man. I can't even with you.

No the insulin question isn't a joke. Answer it. Is there no positive side to insulin?
Fruit and candy both contain glucose. I really would have expected you to know that after all the sugar bashing you do. Candy does not contain fructose. Do you even know what fructose is. I mean seriously. And please don't say you meant HFCS.

You sir, are a boor.

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?

And yes, I meant HFCS in relation to candy.

This content has been removed.

jgnatca

Total rabbit trail here. Our Canadian food guidelines put "potato" in to the vegetable category. It led to some ridiculousness:

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/mother-fined-10-for-packing-unbalanced-lunch-for-children-1.1551163

MrM27 wrote: »

Chrysalid2014 wrote: »

MrM27 wrote: »

Wow man. I can't even with you.

No the insulin question isn't a joke. Answer it. Is there no positive side to insulin?
Fruit and candy both contain glucose. I really would have expected you to know that after all the sugar bashing you do. Candy does not contain fructose. Do you even know what fructose is. I mean seriously. And please don't say you meant HFCS.

You sir, are a boor.

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?

And yes, I meant HFCS in relation to candy.

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 think she meant "boor," as in a "rude person." She is apparently becoming frustrated with her inability to back up her statements, so she is attempting to turn it into a personality issue. How dare you be so rude as to bring actual facts into the conversation?

PeachyCarol

Chrysalid2014 wrote: »

MrM27 wrote: »

Wow man. I can't even with you.

No the insulin question isn't a joke. Answer it. Is there no positive side to insulin?
Fruit and candy both contain glucose. I really would have expected you to know that after all the sugar bashing you do. Candy does not contain fructose. Do you even know what fructose is. I mean seriously. And please don't say you meant HFCS.

You sir, are a boor.

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?

And yes, I meant HFCS in relation to candy.

A Snickers bar doesn't contain HFCS.

A lot of candy doesn't. Most candy contains regular old corn syrup.

That aside, I await MrM's response to the whole HFCS boogeyman.

Hornsby

It's like debating with my 15 year old daughter who thinks she knows everything... Amusing and annoying all at the same time. I shall unsubscribe from this one now.

Lexicpt

MrM27 wrote: »

Please add to the conversation with actual information.

I think a lot of people are here to learn correct information. So enlighten me instead of being rude.

mamapeach910 wrote: »

Chrysalid2014 wrote: »

MrM27 wrote: »

Wow man. I can't even with you.

No the insulin question isn't a joke. Answer it. Is there no positive side to insulin?
Fruit and candy both contain glucose. I really would have expected you to know that after all the sugar bashing you do. Candy does not contain fructose. Do you even know what fructose is. I mean seriously. And please don't say you meant HFCS.

You sir, are a boor.

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?

And yes, I meant HFCS in relation to candy.

A Snickers bar doesn't contain HFCS.

A lot of candy doesn't. Most candy contains regular old corn syrup.

That aside, I await MrM's response to the whole HFCS boogeyman.

Here are the actual ingredients of Snickers, in case someone wants to make the case against them based on what they are made of (instead of what they imagine they are made of): MILK CHOCOLATE (SUGAR, COCOA BUTTER, CHOCOLATE, SKIM MILK, LACTOSE, MILKFAT, SOY LECITHIN, ARTIFICIAL FLAVOR), PEANUTS, CORN SYRUP, SUGAR, PALM OIL, SKIM MILK, LACTOSE, PARTIALLY HYDROGENATED SOYBEAN OIL, SALT, EGG WHITES, ARTIFICIAL FLAVOR.