Opinions on so called 'healthy snacks'
Replies
-
Well, that escalated quickly. It went from asking about healthy snack options to xenophobia. Just another day on the MFP forums.0
-
Jaxxie1181 wrote: »Well, that escalated quickly. It went from asking about healthy snack options to xenophobia. Just another day on the MFP forums.
can I trouble you for a kitteh gif to round things off before this thread gets closed down?!0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
I think you need to read the posts more closely.ArtsyAlexis wrote: »I think what everybody is failing to do is stick with the actual topic posted.
This argument could go on forever and ever and ever and ever and ever but the fact is, both sides are failing to look at the other and failing just as much to put any factual evidence on the board.
I mean, really, it's like reading the comments on Youtube videos.
It was pointed out that the sugar -- and fat -- weren't inherently bad and that the snacks in question were fine if they fit within the OP's caloric and macro goals. Then the "life force" of sugar cane got injected into the conversation. But, yeah, if the other side of the argument is "lack of life force in the food" I'm certainly not persuaded.
OP never even asked about the difference in sugars. OP asked about what micros were and what healthy snacks are out there. Not about "natural" vs "refined" sugars.
Way to go everybody hijacking what could've been a good post.
That's all I'm contributing to this pointless string of bull.0 -
DeeJayShank wrote: »For me, snacks are not filling. I would rather go hungry in between meals and then eat something of substance. There is no medical or health need to eat snacks throughout the day.
I recommend to others that they simply drop snacks altogether to meet calorie goals. When hungry, drink something calorie-free instead.
What? So because it doesn't work for you, no one should snack? There is also no medical or health reason to *not* snack throughout the day if it helps you meet your goals.
0 -
0
-
TavistockToad wrote: »Jaxxie1181 wrote: »Well, that escalated quickly. It went from asking about healthy snack options to xenophobia. Just another day on the MFP forums.
can I trouble you for a kitteh gif to round things off before this thread gets closed down?!
How about a kitteh and pancakes?
0 -
*kitten* Hawks sums this up pretty well.0 -
Again, reading is fundamental. I didn't claim the OP did ask that. It was the "life force" contingent that injected that irrelevancy into the conversation. Until that point, it was pointed out to OP that the snacks are perfectly fine if they fit within her goals. Her question was answered.ArtsyAlexis wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
I think you need to read the posts more closely.ArtsyAlexis wrote: »I think what everybody is failing to do is stick with the actual topic posted.
This argument could go on forever and ever and ever and ever and ever but the fact is, both sides are failing to look at the other and failing just as much to put any factual evidence on the board.
I mean, really, it's like reading the comments on Youtube videos.
It was pointed out that the sugar -- and fat -- weren't inherently bad and that the snacks in question were fine if they fit within the OP's caloric and macro goals. Then the "life force" of sugar cane got injected into the conversation. But, yeah, if the other side of the argument is "lack of life force in the food" I'm certainly not persuaded.
OP never even asked about the difference in sugars. OP asked about what micros were and what healthy snacks are out there. Not about "natural" vs "refined" sugars.
Way to go everybody hijacking what could've been a good post.
0 -
TavistockToad wrote: »Jaxxie1181 wrote: »Well, that escalated quickly. It went from asking about healthy snack options to xenophobia. Just another day on the MFP forums.
can I trouble you for a kitteh gif to round things off before this thread gets closed down?!
How about a kitteh and pancakes?
Needs more syrup
0 -
TavistockToad wrote: »Jaxxie1181 wrote: »Well, that escalated quickly. It went from asking about healthy snack options to xenophobia. Just another day on the MFP forums.
can I trouble you for a kitteh gif to round things off before this thread gets closed down?!
0 -
belleamore1234 wrote: »belleamore1234 wrote: »belleamore1234 wrote: »They are packed with added sugar as on thier own they would be completely unpalatable, that being said if you are logging then you should be able to keep on top of how much sugar you are eating and staying within your macros. If eating this alone tips you over the egde with sugar swap for porridge and fruit for breakfast and ryvita with cream cheese for snacks this will cut down the refined sugar content
so swap one form of sugar with another???
Please just stop.
There is a big difference between natural sugar and refined sugar if you are talking about overall health
oh really? and what would that be?
If person A hits their micros and eats added sugar and Person B hits their micros and eats "natural sugar" then why would person B be healthier than person A as they are both hitting their micro requirements.
I am talking about overall health! Not macro requirements I am talking about whats good for the body, refined white sugar added to foods is not as healthy as naturally produced sugars in fruit and natural carbs if you are attempting to argue with that you must be insane just because two people are hitting the same macro requirements doesn't mean they have the same level of health someone that chooses to hit thier macros eating a snicker isn't going to be as healthy as someone that chooses a natural alternative to get thier sugars on a regular basis
I am talking about micronutrients, not macronutrients.
If both people in my example eat nutrient dense foods, and hit micros, how can the natural sugar person have better overall health than the added sugar person?
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Again, reading is fundamental. I didn't claim the OP did ask that. It was the "life force" contingent that injected that irrelevancy into the conversation. Until that point, it was pointed out to OP that the snacks are perfectly fine if they fit within her goals. Her question was answered.ArtsyAlexis wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
I think you need to read the posts more closely.ArtsyAlexis wrote: »I think what everybody is failing to do is stick with the actual topic posted.
This argument could go on forever and ever and ever and ever and ever but the fact is, both sides are failing to look at the other and failing just as much to put any factual evidence on the board.
I mean, really, it's like reading the comments on Youtube videos.
It was pointed out that the sugar -- and fat -- weren't inherently bad and that the snacks in question were fine if they fit within the OP's caloric and macro goals. Then the "life force" of sugar cane got injected into the conversation. But, yeah, if the other side of the argument is "lack of life force in the food" I'm certainly not persuaded.
OP never even asked about the difference in sugars. OP asked about what micros were and what healthy snacks are out there. Not about "natural" vs "refined" sugars.
Way to go everybody hijacking what could've been a good post.
I think you need to read again. The life force thing came later. Shots have been fired from both sides, but one side was clearly baited in this thread. And it happened on page 1. This never should have become a sugar thread.
0 -
belleamore1234 wrote: »belleamore1234 wrote: »belleamore1234 wrote: »belleamore1234 wrote: »They are packed with added sugar as on thier own they would be completely unpalatable, that being said if you are logging then you should be able to keep on top of how much sugar you are eating and staying within your macros. If eating this alone tips you over the egde with sugar swap for porridge and fruit for breakfast and ryvita with cream cheese for snacks this will cut down the refined sugar content
so swap one form of sugar with another???
Please just stop.
There is a big difference between natural sugar and refined sugar if you are talking about overall health
oh really? and what would that be?
If person A hits their micros and eats added sugar and Person B hits their micros and eats "natural sugar" then why would person B be healthier than person A as they are both hitting their micro requirements.
So what you are saying is its ok to miss out on all the vitamins and minerals in fruits and natural carbs and choose added sugar corn syrup laden cereals as long as you hit your macros lol
No. He said if they were hitting all of their macro AND micro nutrient goals.
No he posed the question that they would be equally healthy, I am clearly saying they wouldn't
you need to go back and read and comprehend what I said. I clearly said they both hit MICRONUTRIENTS..
or is you argument that you can't eat added sugar and hit micros???????????0 -
Dear Laura, if you like the Aldi snacks and they satisfy your cravings at work and you're still within your calorie deficit I say go for it. If you're looking for snacks that are low-sugar, do you have a way of refrigerating things at your job? Hummus and cut up veggies is delicious. Really satisfying (especially with crunchy veggies) and definitely not as high in sugar, if that is a concern to you.0
-
ceoverturf wrote: »TavistockToad wrote: »Jaxxie1181 wrote: »Well, that escalated quickly. It went from asking about healthy snack options to xenophobia. Just another day on the MFP forums.
can I trouble you for a kitteh gif to round things off before this thread gets closed down?!
How about a kitteh and pancakes?
Needs more syrup
Sorry, all of the syrup was missing sufficient life force to be good enough for the pancakes.0 -
belleamore1234 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
By "not asking for your opinion" she means "asking for scientific facts."belleamore1234 wrote: »belleamore1234 wrote: »belleamore1234 wrote: »belleamore1234 wrote: »belleamore1234 wrote: »They are packed with added sugar as on thier own they would be completely unpalatable, that being said if you are logging then you should be able to keep on top of how much sugar you are eating and staying within your macros. If eating this alone tips you over the egde with sugar swap for porridge and fruit for breakfast and ryvita with cream cheese for snacks this will cut down the refined sugar content
so swap one form of sugar with another???
Please just stop.
There is a big difference between natural sugar and refined sugar if you are talking about overall health
oh really? and what would that be?
If person A hits their micros and eats added sugar and Person B hits their micros and eats "natural sugar" then why would person B be healthier than person A as they are both hitting their micro requirements.
I am talking about overall health! Not macro requirements I am talking about whats good for the body, refined white sugar added to foods is not as healthy as naturally produced sugars in fruit and natural carbs if you are attempting to argue with that you must be insane just because two people are hitting the same macro requirements doesn't mean they have the same level of health someone that chooses to hit thier macros eating a snicker isn't going to be as healthy as someone that chooses a natural alternative to get thier sugars on a regular basis
Why not?
Are you seriously asking why artifical ingredient laden foods are not as healthy as natural ones?
Yes. And I'm not asking for your opinion.
Maybe the the concept of asking a question is lost, it usually warrants an answer!
Refined sugar has no nutritional value, none it has no life force no vitamins and no minerals - sugar cane before it is refined does so if you still want to tell me one is equally as healthy as the other well ..................................
I did not know that any food contained a "life force'...
OK we are in la la land and I am suspecting troll force one is landing...0 -
The very first dang non-OP post in the thread was the "life force" person talking about refined sugar. The. very. first. post. Then, when said poster was asked for supporting data, the "life force" thing emerged.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Again, reading is fundamental. I didn't claim the OP did ask that. It was the "life force" contingent that injected that irrelevancy into the conversation. Until that point, it was pointed out to OP that the snacks are perfectly fine if they fit within her goals. Her question was answered.ArtsyAlexis wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
I think you need to read the posts more closely.ArtsyAlexis wrote: »I think what everybody is failing to do is stick with the actual topic posted.
This argument could go on forever and ever and ever and ever and ever but the fact is, both sides are failing to look at the other and failing just as much to put any factual evidence on the board.
I mean, really, it's like reading the comments on Youtube videos.
It was pointed out that the sugar -- and fat -- weren't inherently bad and that the snacks in question were fine if they fit within the OP's caloric and macro goals. Then the "life force" of sugar cane got injected into the conversation. But, yeah, if the other side of the argument is "lack of life force in the food" I'm certainly not persuaded.
OP never even asked about the difference in sugars. OP asked about what micros were and what healthy snacks are out there. Not about "natural" vs "refined" sugars.
Way to go everybody hijacking what could've been a good post.
I think you need to read again. The life force thing came later. Shots have been fired from both sides, but one side was clearly baited in this thread. And it happened on page 1. This never should have become a sugar thread.
In between, the OP was told that the snacks were fine if they fit within her goals.
0 -
TavistockToad wrote: »Jaxxie1181 wrote: »Well, that escalated quickly. It went from asking about healthy snack options to xenophobia. Just another day on the MFP forums.
can I trouble you for a kitteh gif to round things off before this thread gets closed down?!
How about a kitteh and pancakes?
topical, I like it!0 -
Jaxxie1181 wrote: »TavistockToad wrote: »Jaxxie1181 wrote: »Well, that escalated quickly. It went from asking about healthy snack options to xenophobia. Just another day on the MFP forums.
can I trouble you for a kitteh gif to round things off before this thread gets closed down?!
is that a cat inside a turtles shell????0 -
ArtsyAlexis wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
I think you need to read the posts more closely.ArtsyAlexis wrote: »I think what everybody is failing to do is stick with the actual topic posted.
This argument could go on forever and ever and ever and ever and ever but the fact is, both sides are failing to look at the other and failing just as much to put any factual evidence on the board.
I mean, really, it's like reading the comments on Youtube videos.
It was pointed out that the sugar -- and fat -- weren't inherently bad and that the snacks in question were fine if they fit within the OP's caloric and macro goals. Then the "life force" of sugar cane got injected into the conversation. But, yeah, if the other side of the argument is "lack of life force in the food" I'm certainly not persuaded.
OP never even asked about the difference in sugars. OP asked about what micros were and what healthy snacks are out there. Not about "natural" vs "refined" sugars.
Way to go everybody hijacking what could've been a good post.
That's all I'm contributing to this pointless string of bull.
and the other poster came flying in with some BS argument about refined sugar vs natural sugar that does not even make sense. So are we just supposed to let pseudoscience go unchallenged?0 -
In the "let's all hug, all arguments are equal" world, probably so. It's hurtful to ask people to support their assertions.ArtsyAlexis wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
I think you need to read the posts more closely.ArtsyAlexis wrote: »I think what everybody is failing to do is stick with the actual topic posted.
This argument could go on forever and ever and ever and ever and ever but the fact is, both sides are failing to look at the other and failing just as much to put any factual evidence on the board.
I mean, really, it's like reading the comments on Youtube videos.
It was pointed out that the sugar -- and fat -- weren't inherently bad and that the snacks in question were fine if they fit within the OP's caloric and macro goals. Then the "life force" of sugar cane got injected into the conversation. But, yeah, if the other side of the argument is "lack of life force in the food" I'm certainly not persuaded.
OP never even asked about the difference in sugars. OP asked about what micros were and what healthy snacks are out there. Not about "natural" vs "refined" sugars.
Way to go everybody hijacking what could've been a good post.
That's all I'm contributing to this pointless string of bull.
and the other poster came flying in with some BS argument about refined sugar vs natural sugar that does not even make sense. So are we just supposed to let pseudoscience go unchallenged?
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
The very first dang non-OP post in the thread was the "life force" person talking about refined sugar. The. very. first. post. Then, when said poster was asked for supporting data, the "life force" thing emerged.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Again, reading is fundamental. I didn't claim the OP did ask that. It was the "life force" contingent that injected that irrelevancy into the conversation. Until that point, it was pointed out to OP that the snacks are perfectly fine if they fit within her goals. Her question was answered.ArtsyAlexis wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
I think you need to read the posts more closely.ArtsyAlexis wrote: »I think what everybody is failing to do is stick with the actual topic posted.
This argument could go on forever and ever and ever and ever and ever but the fact is, both sides are failing to look at the other and failing just as much to put any factual evidence on the board.
I mean, really, it's like reading the comments on Youtube videos.
It was pointed out that the sugar -- and fat -- weren't inherently bad and that the snacks in question were fine if they fit within the OP's caloric and macro goals. Then the "life force" of sugar cane got injected into the conversation. But, yeah, if the other side of the argument is "lack of life force in the food" I'm certainly not persuaded.
OP never even asked about the difference in sugars. OP asked about what micros were and what healthy snacks are out there. Not about "natural" vs "refined" sugars.
Way to go everybody hijacking what could've been a good post.
I think you need to read again. The life force thing came later. Shots have been fired from both sides, but one side was clearly baited in this thread. And it happened on page 1. This never should have become a sugar thread.
In between, the OP was told that the snacks were fine if they fit within her goals.
Yep, I know. So what. That person gave their opinion, which I don't necessarily agree with, and others came in with their advice. And it could have stayed like that we're it not for the baiting.
Personally I don't care. I'm off for the summer and this stuff is entertaining as hell. But in this case I feel bad for OP. again, this should never have ended up as a sugar thread.
0 -
Because other people read that kind of idiocy, believe it, and make decisions based on it.ArtsyAlexis wrote: »ArtsyAlexis wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
I think you need to read the posts more closely.ArtsyAlexis wrote: »I think what everybody is failing to do is stick with the actual topic posted.
This argument could go on forever and ever and ever and ever and ever but the fact is, both sides are failing to look at the other and failing just as much to put any factual evidence on the board.
I mean, really, it's like reading the comments on Youtube videos.
It was pointed out that the sugar -- and fat -- weren't inherently bad and that the snacks in question were fine if they fit within the OP's caloric and macro goals. Then the "life force" of sugar cane got injected into the conversation. But, yeah, if the other side of the argument is "lack of life force in the food" I'm certainly not persuaded.
OP never even asked about the difference in sugars. OP asked about what micros were and what healthy snacks are out there. Not about "natural" vs "refined" sugars.
Way to go everybody hijacking what could've been a good post.
That's all I'm contributing to this pointless string of bull.
and the other poster came flying in with some BS argument about refined sugar vs natural sugar that does not even make sense. So are we just supposed to let pseudoscience go unchallenged?
Why does everything have to be a challenge? Why not answer OP and move on? Ignoring stuff on the internet is very useful, especially when it turns into a bunch of monkeys spewing stuff that nobody cares about.
0 -
welcometomfp.jpg0
-
ArtsyAlexis wrote: »ArtsyAlexis wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
I think you need to read the posts more closely.ArtsyAlexis wrote: »I think what everybody is failing to do is stick with the actual topic posted.
This argument could go on forever and ever and ever and ever and ever but the fact is, both sides are failing to look at the other and failing just as much to put any factual evidence on the board.
I mean, really, it's like reading the comments on Youtube videos.
It was pointed out that the sugar -- and fat -- weren't inherently bad and that the snacks in question were fine if they fit within the OP's caloric and macro goals. Then the "life force" of sugar cane got injected into the conversation. But, yeah, if the other side of the argument is "lack of life force in the food" I'm certainly not persuaded.
OP never even asked about the difference in sugars. OP asked about what micros were and what healthy snacks are out there. Not about "natural" vs "refined" sugars.
Way to go everybody hijacking what could've been a good post.
That's all I'm contributing to this pointless string of bull.
and the other poster came flying in with some BS argument about refined sugar vs natural sugar that does not even make sense. So are we just supposed to let pseudoscience go unchallenged?
Why does everything have to be a challenge? Why not answer OP and move on? Ignoring stuff on the internet is very useful, especially when it turns into a bunch of monkeys spewing stuff that nobody cares about.
Because people care. Because people don't want lurkers to read something that is untrue, take it as gospel, and then change their entire diet based on someone's feelings rather than on actual facts.
But you know, what do I know, I'm just a spewing monkey.0 -
ArtsyAlexis wrote: »ArtsyAlexis wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
I think you need to read the posts more closely.ArtsyAlexis wrote: »I think what everybody is failing to do is stick with the actual topic posted.
This argument could go on forever and ever and ever and ever and ever but the fact is, both sides are failing to look at the other and failing just as much to put any factual evidence on the board.
I mean, really, it's like reading the comments on Youtube videos.
It was pointed out that the sugar -- and fat -- weren't inherently bad and that the snacks in question were fine if they fit within the OP's caloric and macro goals. Then the "life force" of sugar cane got injected into the conversation. But, yeah, if the other side of the argument is "lack of life force in the food" I'm certainly not persuaded.
OP never even asked about the difference in sugars. OP asked about what micros were and what healthy snacks are out there. Not about "natural" vs "refined" sugars.
Way to go everybody hijacking what could've been a good post.
That's all I'm contributing to this pointless string of bull.
and the other poster came flying in with some BS argument about refined sugar vs natural sugar that does not even make sense. So are we just supposed to let pseudoscience go unchallenged?
Why does everything have to be a challenge? Why not answer OP and move on? Ignoring stuff on the internet is very useful, especially when it turns into a bunch of monkeys spewing stuff that nobody cares about.
Because then we'd have 15 posts a day asking about lemon ginger detoxes instead of only 5.
It's important for those reading the boards to have BS called out.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Because other people read that kind of idiocy, believe it, and make decisions based on it.ArtsyAlexis wrote: »ArtsyAlexis wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
I think you need to read the posts more closely.ArtsyAlexis wrote: »I think what everybody is failing to do is stick with the actual topic posted.
This argument could go on forever and ever and ever and ever and ever but the fact is, both sides are failing to look at the other and failing just as much to put any factual evidence on the board.
I mean, really, it's like reading the comments on Youtube videos.
It was pointed out that the sugar -- and fat -- weren't inherently bad and that the snacks in question were fine if they fit within the OP's caloric and macro goals. Then the "life force" of sugar cane got injected into the conversation. But, yeah, if the other side of the argument is "lack of life force in the food" I'm certainly not persuaded.
OP never even asked about the difference in sugars. OP asked about what micros were and what healthy snacks are out there. Not about "natural" vs "refined" sugars.
Way to go everybody hijacking what could've been a good post.
That's all I'm contributing to this pointless string of bull.
and the other poster came flying in with some BS argument about refined sugar vs natural sugar that does not even make sense. So are we just supposed to let pseudoscience go unchallenged?
Why does everything have to be a challenge? Why not answer OP and move on? Ignoring stuff on the internet is very useful, especially when it turns into a bunch of monkeys spewing stuff that nobody cares about.
I'm going to leave with just one question. Do you honestly think you all helped anyone with this particular thread? Really? What you probably did was keep this OP from ever posting again, and possibly others as all. I'm all for keeping out bad info, but that isn't what was accomplished here. No one learned anything here, I promise you that.
0 -
ArtsyAlexis wrote: »ArtsyAlexis wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
I think you need to read the posts more closely.ArtsyAlexis wrote: »I think what everybody is failing to do is stick with the actual topic posted.
This argument could go on forever and ever and ever and ever and ever but the fact is, both sides are failing to look at the other and failing just as much to put any factual evidence on the board.
I mean, really, it's like reading the comments on Youtube videos.
It was pointed out that the sugar -- and fat -- weren't inherently bad and that the snacks in question were fine if they fit within the OP's caloric and macro goals. Then the "life force" of sugar cane got injected into the conversation. But, yeah, if the other side of the argument is "lack of life force in the food" I'm certainly not persuaded.
OP never even asked about the difference in sugars. OP asked about what micros were and what healthy snacks are out there. Not about "natural" vs "refined" sugars.
Way to go everybody hijacking what could've been a good post.
That's all I'm contributing to this pointless string of bull.
and the other poster came flying in with some BS argument about refined sugar vs natural sugar that does not even make sense. So are we just supposed to let pseudoscience go unchallenged?
Why does everything have to be a challenge? Why not answer OP and move on? Ignoring stuff on the internet is very useful, especially when it turns into a bunch of monkeys spewing stuff that nobody cares about.
Because people care. Because people don't want lurkers to read something that is untrue, take it as gospel, and then change their entire diet based on someone's feelings rather than on actual facts.
But you know, what do I know, I'm just a spewing monkey.
This post needs a gif
Off to google "spewing monkey"
0 -
Yes. Good answers were given.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Because other people read that kind of idiocy, believe it, and make decisions based on it.ArtsyAlexis wrote: »ArtsyAlexis wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
I think you need to read the posts more closely.ArtsyAlexis wrote: »I think what everybody is failing to do is stick with the actual topic posted.
This argument could go on forever and ever and ever and ever and ever but the fact is, both sides are failing to look at the other and failing just as much to put any factual evidence on the board.
I mean, really, it's like reading the comments on Youtube videos.
It was pointed out that the sugar -- and fat -- weren't inherently bad and that the snacks in question were fine if they fit within the OP's caloric and macro goals. Then the "life force" of sugar cane got injected into the conversation. But, yeah, if the other side of the argument is "lack of life force in the food" I'm certainly not persuaded.
OP never even asked about the difference in sugars. OP asked about what micros were and what healthy snacks are out there. Not about "natural" vs "refined" sugars.
Way to go everybody hijacking what could've been a good post.
That's all I'm contributing to this pointless string of bull.
and the other poster came flying in with some BS argument about refined sugar vs natural sugar that does not even make sense. So are we just supposed to let pseudoscience go unchallenged?
Why does everything have to be a challenge? Why not answer OP and move on? Ignoring stuff on the internet is very useful, especially when it turns into a bunch of monkeys spewing stuff that nobody cares about.
I'm going to leave with just one question. Do you honestly think you all helped anyone with this particular thread? Really? What you probably did was keep this OP from ever posting again, and possibly others as all. I'm all for keeping out bad info, but that isn't what was accomplished here. No one learned anything here, I promise you that.
"as long as you are staying in your calorie/micro/macro targets for the day they are fine.
I think they're fine as long as you're able to maintain your calorie goal and they don't leave you feeling hungry
It's all relative to how much of it you're eating, what the rest of your diet is like and what your calories/macro goals are.
There is no reason why these items, or any other food item, cannot be part of a healthy diet. "
You really think those weren't helpful answers?
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Because other people read that kind of idiocy, believe it, and make decisions based on it.ArtsyAlexis wrote: »ArtsyAlexis wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
I think you need to read the posts more closely.ArtsyAlexis wrote: »I think what everybody is failing to do is stick with the actual topic posted.
This argument could go on forever and ever and ever and ever and ever but the fact is, both sides are failing to look at the other and failing just as much to put any factual evidence on the board.
I mean, really, it's like reading the comments on Youtube videos.
It was pointed out that the sugar -- and fat -- weren't inherently bad and that the snacks in question were fine if they fit within the OP's caloric and macro goals. Then the "life force" of sugar cane got injected into the conversation. But, yeah, if the other side of the argument is "lack of life force in the food" I'm certainly not persuaded.
OP never even asked about the difference in sugars. OP asked about what micros were and what healthy snacks are out there. Not about "natural" vs "refined" sugars.
Way to go everybody hijacking what could've been a good post.
That's all I'm contributing to this pointless string of bull.
and the other poster came flying in with some BS argument about refined sugar vs natural sugar that does not even make sense. So are we just supposed to let pseudoscience go unchallenged?
Why does everything have to be a challenge? Why not answer OP and move on? Ignoring stuff on the internet is very useful, especially when it turns into a bunch of monkeys spewing stuff that nobody cares about.
I'm going to leave with just one question. Do you honestly think you all helped anyone with this particular thread? Really? What you probably did was keep this OP from ever posting again, and possibly others as all. I'm all for keeping out bad info, but that isn't what was accomplished here. No one learned anything here, I promise you that.
Patently false.
I learned that one person in this world believes that harvesting sugar cane deprives it of its life force and is thus less-healthy.
I did not know that before this thread.0
https://youtu.be/Qg_belm6apc?t=1m13s
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions