Why I am cutting back on sugar
Replies
-
FitnessTim wrote: »I believe recently that weight gain (in the US) has actually leveled out. I'll need to find that data as well.
I think what you are referring to is a flattening out of obesity rates in the US (whereas it continues to increase in other countries, iirc). What I personally suspect this reflects is that there's a natural cap on the percentage of humans who will become obese, even under conditions that promote it--basically, some people seem to have a natural ability to eat to satiety at a reasonable number of calories, whereas others seem to be able to eat in a more unlimited way. The latter wouldn't have been a bad thing during most periods of human history (even helpful), so it's not terribly surprising that it exists.
The conditions in the US that promote obesity have been in place for a while, whereas other countries are becoming more like us, but that doesn't mean that everyone is affected by them in the same way.
0 -
Demonizing, evils, self-hatred, oh my.Another one of these threads? Really? Can’t there just be an anti-sugar group where you can all lament the evils of sugar to your heart’s content?
I really thought it was becoming evident by this point that not everyone will get on board with this particular demonization, and for good reason in my opinion. Are you trying to convert others to your particular set of sugar beliefs? Scare people into eating less sugar? I just don’t understand what you think you will accomplish. Why can’t losing weight just be about eating at a caloric deficit while meeting self-selected nutritional goals, without guilt or self-hatred for eating a donut every now and again?
I'm not really seeing it, but ok.
0 -
Another one of these threads? Really? Can’t there just be an anti-sugar group where you can all lament the evils of sugar to your heart’s content?
I really thought it was becoming evident by this point that not everyone will get on board with this particular demonization, and for good reason in my opinion. Are you trying to convert others to your particular set of sugar beliefs? Scare people into eating less sugar? I just don’t understand what you think you will accomplish. Why can’t losing weight just be about eating at a caloric deficit while meeting self-selected nutritional goals, without guilt or self-hatred for eating a donut every now and again?
Apparently 2015 is the year of the daily anti-sugar thread. I think 2014 was the cleanse year, or how to spot reduce....0 -
Sabine_Stroehm Maybe I’ve just seen too many of these threads lately... And RGv2, it sure seems that way!0
-
Nice, calm discussion about this topic today, so maybe a good time for me to ask: I have it in my head that sugar (among other things) has been linked to inflammation in the body and this long-term inflammation causes damage. I know I just need to research it myself if I want to know, but is anyone knowledgeable about this? and can share their knowledge in a calm, non-condescending way?
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »KombuchaCat wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
What makes all of this even more complicated is most store bought pasta sauces, yogurts etc. have both naturally occurring sugars AND added sugars...mamapeach910 wrote: »I'm currently limiting my intake of everything in appropriate ratios to meet my goals/nutritional needs.
I sometimes go over sugar, but I get a lot of natural sugar from plain dairy and vegetables.
One of the issues with your post, OP was that some of the sugar in the products you listed was from natural sources (tomatoes, lactose in the yogurt), and the WHO recommendations are for added sugars.
I don't have too much to add to the discussion, because Side Steel said everything best that I'd like to say, particularly in terms of general population vs. health conscious eaters.
Oh, except this. I got 20 grams of sugar one day... almost half my daily allowance from MFP... from cauliflower. I consumed no added "free" sugars that day and ended up over my goals.
Bottom line? You do you, I'll do me. I'm not overly worried about me and my small serving of evening gelato.
Plain yogurt doesn't.
Flavored yogurt does, and of course it's hard to sort out. I had some yesterday, as I said, and it had sugar from yogurt, blueberries, and a little cane sugar--I could only guess at how much based on placement on the label. In the scheme of things the addition of a little cane sugar didn't matter to me, although I'd normally avoid the issue since I like plain yogurt with blueberries as well or better. But people exaggerate the extent to which something like that yogurt contains added sugar, and I seriously doubt it contributes to the obesity issue at all. (Same with adding a little sugar to oatmeal or store-bought pasta sauce, although as I always say, I'm a snob about store-bought pasta sauce. The funny thing is plenty of traditional recipes for marinara will have a little sugar, even though I've never added it personally.)
Indeed, plain yogurt does not.
All yogurt has sugar but the difference is fructose. Plain yogurt only has lactose. Yogurt with added fruit has fructose from, of course, the fruit and then also usually more added sugar (sucrose which is half fructose). Your body metabolizing the various types of sugar differently. Plain and then adding your own fruit would be best if you want fruity yogurt so there is no added sugar.
So what's bad with added sugar that's not bad with the sugar from fruit? And don't say "micronutrients" because that has nothing to do with the sugar itself.
Fiber - the fiber in fruit mitigates the effects of fructose in metabolics. There is not enough fiber in yogurt to do that. The liver will respond accordingly.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »granturismo wrote: »
No, all carbohydrates are sugars. They're synonyms.
Not true. The difference between total carbs, fiber + sugar = starch. Fiber is NOT sugar. Fiber is included in total carbohydrates.0 -
Nice, calm discussion about this topic today, so maybe a good time for me to ask: I have it in my head that sugar (among other things) has been linked to inflammation in the body and this long-term inflammation causes damage. I know I just need to research it myself if I want to know, but is anyone knowledgeable about this? and can share their knowledge in a calm, non-condescending way?
There was a good thread that mamapeach started about inflammation, and one thing that was clear is that people are talking about a variety of different things, so the first question is what do you mean by inflammation? There's a specific medical meaning, but people seem to use it more broadly.
(I'd also recommend seeking out that thread, which had some good information.)0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »Fiber - the fiber in fruit mitigates the effects of fructose in metabolics. There is not enough fiber in yogurt to do that.
Doesn't it depend on how you eat the yogurt? Lots of people eat it WITH fruit or on oatmeal, for example.
I don't add sugar to yogurt (my personal preference is to eat it plain with berries or some other fruit), but if I did and otherwise ate it as I almost always do--with a breakfast including lots of veggies and some fruit--why would the bit of added sugar be an issue?0 -
FitnessTim wrote: »Nobody knows for sure what the "perfect" diet is. All we can do is look at what data is out there and come to our own conclusions. I'm betting on a low sugar diet. Call it personal preference if you want.
If we don't want to try any theory on what we should eat, we can always try to fall back on just maintaining a calorie deficit. The problem is maintaining a calories deficit is not mathematical problem but rather a human problem. If it were that easy nobody would be overweight. The real problem is how can we maintain a calorie deficit in a way that has a reasonable chance of success over time.
By the way, Acg67 (or anyone else), do you have a link that shows a reduction in sugar intake over the past decade? I'm really curious about that because I believe recently that weight gain (in the US) has actually leveled out. I'll need to find that data as well.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-availability-(per-capita)-data-system.aspx
Are you familiar with post hoc ergo propter hoc?
And you do understand all carbs are sugars? Right?
I was not familiar with the term "post hoc ergo propter hoc" but I am familiar with the concept. You are right that we can't make assumptions about the relation between two events, however I think we can agree that in the absence of controlled studies it is fair to propose theories based on observations. There have been studies that seem to suggest a correlation between sugar and the ability to maintain a healthy weight.
On the other hand, are we to dismiss a theory outright because it can't be 100% proven. Even if I were to reduce my sugar intake and become extremely fit and healthy that would not prove anything but it would give credence to the theory.
Also, I tried to follow your line of reasoning by reading the data you provided but wasn't able to. The average intake globally of sugar and sweeteners has increased in the past decade from 8.7 to 16.8%. Worldwide obesity has more than doubled since 1980. If anything, the data you provided supports the theory that sugar contributes to obesity.
Anyone making strong claims about what is good or bad to eat should have their validity questioned as I have been, deservedly. While it is fair to question what I claim as an opinion, I think if also fair to expect a well reasoned counterargument rather than just dismiss the premise as bogus because it can't be proven. For you part, it appears as if you have attempted to make a valid counterargument but I'm either not capable of seeing the connection to your data or the data is counter to what you are suggesting.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Nice, calm discussion about this topic today, so maybe a good time for me to ask: I have it in my head that sugar (among other things) has been linked to inflammation in the body and this long-term inflammation causes damage. I know I just need to research it myself if I want to know, but is anyone knowledgeable about this? and can share their knowledge in a calm, non-condescending way?
There was a good thread that mamapeach started about inflammation, and one thing that was clear is that people are talking about a variety of different things, so the first question is what do you mean by inflammation? There's a specific medical meaning, but people seem to use it more broadly.
(I'd also recommend seeking out that thread, which had some good information.)
Thanks, lemurcat, I will
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »Fiber - the fiber in fruit mitigates the effects of fructose in metabolics. There is not enough fiber in yogurt to do that.
Doesn't it depend on how you eat the yogurt? Lots of people eat it WITH fruit or on oatmeal, for example.
I don't add sugar to yogurt (my personal preference is to eat it plain with berries or some other fruit), but if I did and otherwise ate it as I almost always do--with a breakfast including lots of veggies and some fruit--why would the bit of added sugar be an issue?
Yes - context does matter - well I believe it does. I know you have posts that state the same - in a vacuum, sure there's an issue there - but if you eat it with something fibrous or add protein, it would help.
Like white rice - eat white rice unto itself - you'll spike your blood sugar and make that rice store as fat - but that's in a vacuum. Eat white rice with protein and a fibrous veggie (non-starchy), now you balanced off the GI load.
Great point!
0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »Fiber - the fiber in fruit mitigates the effects of fructose in metabolics. There is not enough fiber in yogurt to do that.
Doesn't it depend on how you eat the yogurt? Lots of people eat it WITH fruit or on oatmeal, for example.
I don't add sugar to yogurt (my personal preference is to eat it plain with berries or some other fruit), but if I did and otherwise ate it as I almost always do--with a breakfast including lots of veggies and some fruit--why would the bit of added sugar be an issue?
Yes - context does matter - well I believe it does. I know you have posts that state the same - in a vacuum, sure there's an issue there - but if you eat it with something fibrous or add protein, it would help.
Like white rice - eat white rice unto itself - you'll spike your blood sugar and make that rice store as fat - but that's in a vacuum. Eat white rice with protein and a fibrous veggie (non-starchy), now you balanced off the GI load.
Great point!
In a calorie deficit?
And don't get started with your visceral fat argument. Because it's specious at best.0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »Fiber - the fiber in fruit mitigates the effects of fructose in metabolics. There is not enough fiber in yogurt to do that.
Doesn't it depend on how you eat the yogurt? Lots of people eat it WITH fruit or on oatmeal, for example.
I don't add sugar to yogurt (my personal preference is to eat it plain with berries or some other fruit), but if I did and otherwise ate it as I almost always do--with a breakfast including lots of veggies and some fruit--why would the bit of added sugar be an issue?
Yes - context does matter - well I believe it does. I know you have posts that state the same - in a vacuum, sure there's an issue there - but if you eat it with something fibrous or add protein, it would help.
Like white rice - eat white rice unto itself - you'll spike your blood sugar and make that rice store as fat - but that's in a vacuum. Eat white rice with protein and a fibrous veggie (non-starchy), now you balanced off the GI load.
Great point!
Sorry to butt in, but wouldn’t that rice only store as fat if you were eating at a caloric surplus? You have inspired me to look into studies done on this when I have some free time I do very much appreciate the calm and thoughtful discussion you guys have going!
@try2again, this is the thread lemurcat mentions. I too found it very informative.0 -
asflatasapancake wrote: »Am I the only one who thinks that sugar is being used as an excuse for why someone is overweight? It isn't that they overeat. It's the sugar's fault. Now they can be unhealthy and a financial burden to the health system and be accepted. Thank you Katie Couric.
As an American, was I responsible for my diet growing up? Was it a conscious reasoned choice for me to eat sugary cereals, candy, cola, etc. You can blame my parents but they came from a generation that didn't have to worry as much about what they ate - food was just generally better for you.
On the other hand, the companies that produced and marketed the food knew what they were doing and are still doing. They purposefully make food incredibly hard to resist. Good for them but who should have been responsible for informing the public the negative consequences of eating the food that was pushed on them by expert marketers.
Tell the overwhelming amount of obese children that it is their fault they are overweight. Or tell the parents who constantly struggle to get their kids to eat healthy foods that it is their fault they can't compete with billboards, commercials, Youtube videos and so on that promote junk food.
Ultimately it is my responsibility what I put in my body. I choose to become better informed about what proportions of foods I should eat. However, nobody should be forced to put in the same time and effort I have over the years to achieve reasonably good health.0 -
FitnessTim wrote: »asflatasapancake wrote: »Am I the only one who thinks that sugar is being used as an excuse for why someone is overweight? It isn't that they overeat. It's the sugar's fault. Now they can be unhealthy and a financial burden to the health system and be accepted. Thank you Katie Couric.
As an American, was I responsible for my diet growing up? Was it a conscious reasoned choice for me to eat sugary cereals, candy, cola, etc. You can blame my parents but they came from a generation that didn't have to worry as much about what they ate - food was just generally better for you.
On the other hand, the companies that produced and marketed the food knew what they were doing and are still doing. They purposefully make food incredibly hard to resist. Good for them but who should have been responsible for informing the public the negative consequences of eating the food that was pushed on them by expert marketers.
Tell the overwhelming amount of obese children that it is their fault they are overweight. Or tell the parents who constantly struggle to get their kids to eat healthy foods that it is their fault they can't compete with billboards, commercials, Youtube videos and so on that promote junk food.
Ultimately it is my responsibility what I put in my body. I choose to become better informed about what proportions of foods I should eat. However, nobody should be forced to put in the same time and effort I have over the years to achieve reasonably good health.
I’d just like to point out that it is these companies’ job to make their products appealing. What’s more, most are publicly owned companies, so they in fact have a responsibility to shareholders to sell as much product for as much profit as possible. That’s not malevolent, it’s capitalism.0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »Fiber - the fiber in fruit mitigates the effects of fructose in metabolics. There is not enough fiber in yogurt to do that.
Doesn't it depend on how you eat the yogurt? Lots of people eat it WITH fruit or on oatmeal, for example.
I don't add sugar to yogurt (my personal preference is to eat it plain with berries or some other fruit), but if I did and otherwise ate it as I almost always do--with a breakfast including lots of veggies and some fruit--why would the bit of added sugar be an issue?
Yes - context does matter - well I believe it does. I know you have posts that state the same - in a vacuum, sure there's an issue there - but if you eat it with something fibrous or add protein, it would help.
Like white rice - eat white rice unto itself - you'll spike your blood sugar and make that rice store as fat - but that's in a vacuum. Eat white rice with protein and a fibrous veggie (non-starchy), now you balanced off the GI load.
Great point!
In a calorie deficit?
And don't get started with your visceral fat argument. Because it's specious at best.
There's nothing specious about visceral fat. I had it - and I reduced it down to minimal amounts. I think that's trivializing the argument.
Calorie deficits are relative - if you eat a high protein diet, you raise your metabolism to account for the extra protein - it's a relative number. What's the number, you really don't know - it's a best guess - and it's a best estimation based upon the nutritional profile of the food you are eating.
If glycogen is not needed by the muscles, you store it as fat. That doesn't equate to being in a calorie deficit. You can be in a deficit, satisfied muscle glycogen requirements and still store it as fat.
0 -
lol, OP I love you say you are not going to provide any evidence about why sugar is bad, but then you say that it is....
Please post reputable links to back up your claim.
Unless you have a medical condition there is no reason to avoid sugar. I eat about 100 grams of sugar a day and my blood work comes back perfect every year...0 -
I agree that the main cause of obesity is consuming more calories than are burned. Giving up sugar to lose weight only helps if you don't replace those items with other foods. So passing on a slice of pie and opting to eat a bowl of chips is not going to help with weight loss. For years I would include occasional sweet treats in my diet and it never caused weight gain. Having said that, I gave up "added" sugar a few years ago and I truly feel much better. I still have sugar in my diet through fruit, dairy products, etc. I guess that's natural sugar. I don't eat sweets at all, ever, and I don't miss it.0
-
FitnessTim wrote: »asflatasapancake wrote: »Am I the only one who thinks that sugar is being used as an excuse for why someone is overweight? It isn't that they overeat. It's the sugar's fault. Now they can be unhealthy and a financial burden to the health system and be accepted. Thank you Katie Couric.
As an American, was I responsible for my diet growing up? Was it a conscious reasoned choice for me to eat sugary cereals, candy, cola, etc. You can blame my parents but they came from a generation that didn't have to worry as much about what they ate - food was just generally better for you.
On the other hand, the companies that produced and marketed the food knew what they were doing and are still doing. They purposefully make food incredibly hard to resist. Good for them but who should have been responsible for informing the public the negative consequences of eating the food that was pushed on them by expert marketers.
Tell the overwhelming amount of obese children that it is their fault they are overweight. Or tell the parents who constantly struggle to get their kids to eat healthy foods that it is their fault they can't compete with billboards, commercials, Youtube videos and so on that promote junk food.
Ultimately it is my responsibility what I put in my body. I choose to become better informed about what proportions of foods I should eat. However, nobody should be forced to put in the same time and effort I have over the years to achieve reasonably good health.
I’d just like to point out that it is these companies’ job to make their products appealing. What’s more, most are publicly owned companies, so they in fact have a responsibility to shareholders to sell as much product for as much profit as possible. That’s not malevolent, it’s capitalism.
Word. And, ultimately, it's up to the parents or us as grown adults to learn about nutrition. Parent's shouldn't have to compete with billboards. They're parents, and until their children have money of their own, they are in charge of nutrition. Parents who let their children tantrum their way into too much food are only reinforcing terrible habits and get zero sympathy from me.
And I am going to disagree with your final point. I think if more people put in more time and effort into understanding health and nutrition, the world would be a much fitter place. You weren't 'forced' to do it; you chose to do it to improve your life and health. Frankly, I think basic nutrition should be mandatory in schools.0 -
but wouldn’t that rice only store as fat if you were eating at a caloric surplus?
At a calorie deficit you might be storing fat and using fat all the time, but your net added fat would be negative, yes.
I think the deal with eating plain rice (which sounds horrible to me--the only person I know who does that is thin and simply isn't interested in food) is that for many people it would not be filling so you'd be inclined to eat more later.
For me, stuff like rice and pasta didn't provoke overeating at all (maybe because I can't imagine eating them alone) due to any increased hunger. I just had a distorted serving size idea and would eat it because it was on my plate sometimes (along with other food that made it delicious). This is not at all something unique to carbs, for me.
Indeed, I'm really not a carb person compared to many, though--whenever people talk about being tempted by bread (well, other than naan, which is amazing) or pasta or rice or even huge servings of potatoes and, especially, cereal (I hate cold cereal), I'm always mystified. Why, when the world includes meat and cheese? ;-) Yet somehow I managed to get quite fat.0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »Fiber - the fiber in fruit mitigates the effects of fructose in metabolics. There is not enough fiber in yogurt to do that.
Doesn't it depend on how you eat the yogurt? Lots of people eat it WITH fruit or on oatmeal, for example.
I don't add sugar to yogurt (my personal preference is to eat it plain with berries or some other fruit), but if I did and otherwise ate it as I almost always do--with a breakfast including lots of veggies and some fruit--why would the bit of added sugar be an issue?
Yes - context does matter - well I believe it does. I know you have posts that state the same - in a vacuum, sure there's an issue there - but if you eat it with something fibrous or add protein, it would help.
Like white rice - eat white rice unto itself - you'll spike your blood sugar and make that rice store as fat - but that's in a vacuum. Eat white rice with protein and a fibrous veggie (non-starchy), now you balanced off the GI load.
Great point!
Sorry to butt in, but wouldn’t that rice only store as fat if you were eating at a caloric surplus? You have inspired me to look into studies done on this when I have some free time I do very much appreciate the calm and thoughtful discussion you guys have going!
@try2again, this is the thread lemurcat mentions. I too found it very informative.
No. Several things must be satisfied in order to determine whether storage of carbohydrates into fat. It doesn't have to be in relation to calorie surplus. There's how the body metabolizes the food - what context by which you eat it, and whether you utilize the high dose of energy provided within a specific timeframe of eating it.
White rice has no fiber - it digests and raises blood sugar substantially in a vacuum. Most people don't eat white rice in a vacuum (it's paired with significant protein and a non-starchy veggie) but that's why sugar is so powerful, as an example, a lot of times it's eaten unto itself without anything else to help mitigate the effects.0 -
FitnessTim wrote: »asflatasapancake wrote: »Am I the only one who thinks that sugar is being used as an excuse for why someone is overweight? It isn't that they overeat. It's the sugar's fault. Now they can be unhealthy and a financial burden to the health system and be accepted. Thank you Katie Couric.
As an American, was I responsible for my diet growing up? Was it a conscious reasoned choice for me to eat sugary cereals, candy, cola, etc. You can blame my parents but they came from a generation that didn't have to worry as much about what they ate - food was just generally better for you.
On the other hand, the companies that produced and marketed the food knew what they were doing and are still doing. They purposefully make food incredibly hard to resist. Good for them but who should have been responsible for informing the public the negative consequences of eating the food that was pushed on them by expert marketers.
Tell the overwhelming amount of obese children that it is their fault they are overweight. Or tell the parents who constantly struggle to get their kids to eat healthy foods that it is their fault they can't compete with billboards, commercials, Youtube videos and so on that promote junk food.
Ultimately it is my responsibility what I put in my body. I choose to become better informed about what proportions of foods I should eat. However, nobody should be forced to put in the same time and effort I have over the years to achieve reasonably good health.
I’d just like to point out that it is these companies’ job to make their products appealing. What’s more, most are publicly owned companies, so they in fact have a responsibility to shareholders to sell as much product for as much profit as possible. That’s not malevolent, it’s capitalism.
wait, companies are supposed to make appealing products that are profitable????????????0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »Fiber - the fiber in fruit mitigates the effects of fructose in metabolics. There is not enough fiber in yogurt to do that.
Doesn't it depend on how you eat the yogurt? Lots of people eat it WITH fruit or on oatmeal, for example.
I don't add sugar to yogurt (my personal preference is to eat it plain with berries or some other fruit), but if I did and otherwise ate it as I almost always do--with a breakfast including lots of veggies and some fruit--why would the bit of added sugar be an issue?
Yes - context does matter - well I believe it does. I know you have posts that state the same - in a vacuum, sure there's an issue there - but if you eat it with something fibrous or add protein, it would help.
Like white rice - eat white rice unto itself - you'll spike your blood sugar and make that rice store as fat - but that's in a vacuum. Eat white rice with protein and a fibrous veggie (non-starchy), now you balanced off the GI load.
Great point!
Sorry to butt in, but wouldn’t that rice only store as fat if you were eating at a caloric surplus? You have inspired me to look into studies done on this when I have some free time I do very much appreciate the calm and thoughtful discussion you guys have going!
@try2again, this is the thread lemurcat mentions. I too found it very informative.
No. Several things must be satisfied in order to determine whether storage of carbohydrates into fat. It doesn't have to be in relation to calorie surplus. There's how the body metabolizes the food - what context by which you eat it, and whether you utilize the high dose of energy provided within a specific timeframe of eating it.
White rice has no fiber - it digests and raises blood sugar substantially in a vacuum. Most people don't eat white rice in a vacuum (it's paired with significant protein and a non-starchy veggie) but that's why sugar is so powerful, as an example, a lot of times it's eaten unto itself without anything else to help mitigate the effects.
if you have already hit your micros for the day, or a good portion thereof, I don't see how this even applies.
No one is eating a diet of 100% sugar, or white rice0 -
This is just silly. I have automatically cut back on sugar just because I'm eating less carbs. I'm not going to cut out things like fruit. No one gets fat just from eating too much fruit lol. My main concern throughout the day is "am I getting enough protein, and how can I get more?" And whether I'm going over on carbs. Sugar is the least of my worries. I also firmly believe that cutting things back too much can make one feel deprived. I love ice cream. If it fits into my calories/macros I will eat it after dinner every single day. I didn't get to last night because I was under on protein and had already almost hit my carb limit, so I had a protein shake instead.
This BS of cutting out sugar (or fats as some people do) is junk science. People don't get fat because they eat too much sugar, they get fat because the eat too many calories and don't exercise.
CICO (calories in calories out), that's all it boils down to. Anything else is just horse****.0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »Fiber - the fiber in fruit mitigates the effects of fructose in metabolics. There is not enough fiber in yogurt to do that.
Doesn't it depend on how you eat the yogurt? Lots of people eat it WITH fruit or on oatmeal, for example.
I don't add sugar to yogurt (my personal preference is to eat it plain with berries or some other fruit), but if I did and otherwise ate it as I almost always do--with a breakfast including lots of veggies and some fruit--why would the bit of added sugar be an issue?
Yes - context does matter - well I believe it does. I know you have posts that state the same - in a vacuum, sure there's an issue there - but if you eat it with something fibrous or add protein, it would help.
Like white rice - eat white rice unto itself - you'll spike your blood sugar and make that rice store as fat - but that's in a vacuum. Eat white rice with protein and a fibrous veggie (non-starchy), now you balanced off the GI load.
Great point!
Sorry to butt in, but wouldn’t that rice only store as fat if you were eating at a caloric surplus? You have inspired me to look into studies done on this when I have some free time I do very much appreciate the calm and thoughtful discussion you guys have going!
@try2again, this is the thread lemurcat mentions. I too found it very informative.
No. Several things must be satisfied in order to determine whether storage of carbohydrates into fat. It doesn't have to be in relation to calorie surplus. There's how the body metabolizes the food - what context by which you eat it, and whether you utilize the high dose of energy provided within a specific timeframe of eating it.
White rice has no fiber - it digests and raises blood sugar substantially in a vacuum. Most people don't eat white rice in a vacuum (it's paired with significant protein and a non-starchy veggie) but that's why sugar is so powerful, as an example, a lot of times it's eaten unto itself without anything else to help mitigate the effects.
if you have already hit your micros for the day, or a good portion thereof, I don't see how this even applies.
No one is eating a diet of 100% sugar, or white rice
Psssh. Everyone knows that those white rice and pasta-eating people in the blue zones are all so fat and die so young.0 -
FitnessTim wrote: »asflatasapancake wrote: »Am I the only one who thinks that sugar is being used as an excuse for why someone is overweight? It isn't that they overeat. It's the sugar's fault. Now they can be unhealthy and a financial burden to the health system and be accepted. Thank you Katie Couric.
As an American, was I responsible for my diet growing up? Was it a conscious reasoned choice for me to eat sugary cereals, candy, cola, etc. You can blame my parents but they came from a generation that didn't have to worry as much about what they ate - food was just generally better for you.
On the other hand, the companies that produced and marketed the food knew what they were doing and are still doing. They purposefully make food incredibly hard to resist. Good for them but who should have been responsible for informing the public the negative consequences of eating the food that was pushed on them by expert marketers.
Tell the overwhelming amount of obese children that it is their fault they are overweight. Or tell the parents who constantly struggle to get their kids to eat healthy foods that it is their fault they can't compete with billboards, commercials, Youtube videos and so on that promote junk food.
Ultimately it is my responsibility what I put in my body. I choose to become better informed about what proportions of foods I should eat. However, nobody should be forced to put in the same time and effort I have over the years to achieve reasonably good health.
I’d just like to point out that it is these companies’ job to make their products appealing. What’s more, most are publicly owned companies, so they in fact have a responsibility to shareholders to sell as much product for as much profit as possible. That’s not malevolent, it’s capitalism.
Word. And, ultimately, it's up to the parents or us as grown adults to learn about nutrition. Parent's shouldn't have to compete with billboards. They're parents, and until their children have money of their own, they are in charge of nutrition. Parents who let their children tantrum their way into too much food are only reinforcing terrible habits and get zero sympathy from me.
And I am going to disagree with your final point. I think if more people put in more time and effort into understanding health and nutrition, the world would be a much fitter place. You weren't 'forced' to do it; you chose to do it to improve your life and health. Frankly, I think basic nutrition should be mandatory in schools.
I could not agree more with every point you make. I for one would not tolerate temper tantrums or picky eating, especially as it’s not something I ever indulged in. As for teaching nutrition, isn’t there a sex ed / home ec / parenting type of class mandatory in US high schools? (I live in Canada, I know nothing) That sounds like the perfect place to insert this into the curriculum.
Lemurcat, thank you for the explanation. And lol, ndj!0 -
FitnessTim wrote: »As an American, was I responsible for my diet growing up? Was it a conscious reasoned choice for me to eat sugary cereals, candy, cola, etc. You can blame my parents but they came from a generation that didn't have to worry as much about what they ate - food was just generally better for you.
Well, you are roughly my age.
As a kid cereal was always on offer, yes (I hated cold cereal, as mentioned in my prior post, so am well aware of this, since I refused to eat it at home but was forced to choke down some to be polite when staying overnight somewhere--kids used to have to do things like that).
We did not regularly have soda--it was a rare special occasion thing (not like now, it seems), and same with fast food, even though it existed. Everyone knew candy was something that should be eaten in limited quantities. I honestly can't think of anything people thought was healthy but in retrospect wasn't, except perhaps for the over-emphasis on the benefits of non sugary cereals. So blaming marketing seems inaccurate.
Also, there weren't lots of fat kids.
What seems different now is that a lot of the things that were special occasions for us are commonplace now--fast food for numerous meals, giant sodas and "energy drinks" for kids, limitless sweets vs. a small afterschool snack. So the question is why has this changed? Do people now think that these things are good for kids or harmless, unlike in the '80s? I seriously doubt it--people have not become way dumber, and marketing was probably much more effective in the '70s and '80s, since these days everyone is rather cynical about it, or you'd think, anyway (and I know I am and get the impression that the kids of my friends are relatively media savvy compared with us, and even in the '80s and '90s being jaded and media savvy was already a thing).
But more significantly, social mores have changed. There were ideas about what a meal was, what snacks were and the role they should play, that most meals should be homecooked and eaten together as a family, etc., back when I was growing up that seem to no longer be in existence. The SAD that I learned when growing up was meat (including fish), potatoes or some other starch, and veggies. (We also knew corn was a starch.) I'm not saying meat & potatoes was all that, and our menu included some rather unfortunate casseroles on occasion and plenty of canned soup and veggies, but on the whole this wasn't a bad diet. Now some of have a much more widely varied diet (the only Asian food we ever had growing up was "Chinese," the only pasta "spaghetti" or "lasagne," and beyond that there's a huge range of foods I eat regularly I'd never heard of), but the SAD seems to be something much worse.
What I think it is is that in the absence of reasons not to eat it or to put in more work, humans of course are tempted by and consume the huge amount of palatable, cheap (in terms of time and money) food. But having things available is not bad. Our failure to properly judge the costs and benefits is what is a problem.0 -
This content has been removed.
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