Sugars
Replies
-
No. That's not how it works. Saying that sugar isn't bad doesn't lack precision or correctness. If you want to assert that sugar is bad, you need to define precisely and correctly the parameters in which it is so. If X amount of sugar is bad, it's the X amount, rather than something inherent in the sugar. What's the X amount, then, in your view?And the specific person I responded to first made a blanket statement that sugar is not bad (again, as opposed to a precise and correct statement that it isn't bad in all quantities.
0 -
Anything consumed in excess can create health issues, yes. But not everything creates the same health issues, and the health issues created by the overconsumption of each item is not equally serious or equally reversible. What doesn't hold water is pretending like it is. Overconsumption of alcohol, for example, is not the same as overconsumption of water, and overconsumption of added sugars is not the same as eating one too many broccoli heads.snickerscharlie wrote: »You can take the name of any Gods or Deities you like, but your very reaction about "anti-sugar" brigade shows the problem I am trying to address. There are a lot of people here - yourself included, it would seem - who are perfectly reasonable in their own approach to diet and nutrition but have a fit when anyone dares suggest that excess sugar intake can have adverse health effects (more so than excess fiber intake, for example).
I began my participation in this thread in order, specifically, to respond to a blanket claim that sugar is not bad (as opposed to a more precise and correct claim that it isn't bad in all quantities).
You are frustrated that I am "preaching" about the evils of excess sugar intake, yet you have no trouble painting with a broad brush anyone who has a legitimate concern about the effects of added sugars and calling them all part of some "anti-sugar brigade." Your automatic assumption that anyone who raises concerns about sugars at all must be a militant anti-sugar warrior is the problem here, more than my stating facts about sugar that you don't really seem to disagree with.
As for concerns about sugar being raised on a calorie-counting site, one reason to do so is that excess sugar intake makes maintaining one's calorie goal difficult, not simply because sugary foods themselves contain calories but also because of cravings it tends to create.
Quoted the whole thing but want to specifically address the part I bolded.
I'd be pretty hard-pressed to figure out *anything* that a human can consume that wouldn't create health issues if they had too much of it. Even water. So this point that you are holding up as some sort of empirical evidence holds no water. Not even a reasonable amount.0 -
Anything consumed in excess can create health issues, yes. But not everything creates the same health issues, and the health issues created by the overconsumption of each item is not equally serious or equally reversible. What doesn't hold water is pretending like it is. Overconsumption of alcohol, for example, is not the same as overconsumption of water, and overconsumption of added sugars is not the same as eating one too many broccoli heads.snickerscharlie wrote: »You can take the name of any Gods or Deities you like, but your very reaction about "anti-sugar" brigade shows the problem I am trying to address. There are a lot of people here - yourself included, it would seem - who are perfectly reasonable in their own approach to diet and nutrition but have a fit when anyone dares suggest that excess sugar intake can have adverse health effects (more so than excess fiber intake, for example).
I began my participation in this thread in order, specifically, to respond to a blanket claim that sugar is not bad (as opposed to a more precise and correct claim that it isn't bad in all quantities).
You are frustrated that I am "preaching" about the evils of excess sugar intake, yet you have no trouble painting with a broad brush anyone who has a legitimate concern about the effects of added sugars and calling them all part of some "anti-sugar brigade." Your automatic assumption that anyone who raises concerns about sugars at all must be a militant anti-sugar warrior is the problem here, more than my stating facts about sugar that you don't really seem to disagree with.
As for concerns about sugar being raised on a calorie-counting site, one reason to do so is that excess sugar intake makes maintaining one's calorie goal difficult, not simply because sugary foods themselves contain calories but also because of cravings it tends to create.
Quoted the whole thing but want to specifically address the part I bolded.
I'd be pretty hard-pressed to figure out *anything* that a human can consume that wouldn't create health issues if they had too much of it. Even water. So this point that you are holding up as some sort of empirical evidence holds no water. Not even a reasonable amount.
So, what you're saying is that eating one extra cookie is worse than eating one extra broccoli head? Why?0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Well, they raise blood sugar because they have added sugar... I mean you can't get sugar from no sugar, right? And consistently (and artificially) elevated blood sugar levels are a risk factor for diabetes for those who currently do not have the disease.
Blood glucose arises from any digestible carbohydrate not just sugar let alone "added" or "refined" sugar. Your liver also makes it - one aspect of diabetes is overproduction internally, you don't get a high fasting blood sugar from what you ate.
Adding to that, yes you can get sugar from no sugar. Through a process called gluconeogenesis. @deaniac83
I see. And I assume it is your contention that it is glocogenesis that results in blood sugar spikes from sugary drinks the ADA advises we avoid to PREVENT diabetes?0 -
You ate a pound of cauliflower ?mamapeach910 wrote: »Yup. I routinely eat about that at times.
No gas either.
It was roasted with smoked paprika and utterly delicious. I was having a hungry day.
I actually wish I could. Unfortunately, cauliflower and broccoli both digest very slowly and quantities like that make my hiatal hernia act up. Last time was a half pound of steamed broccoli because I was hungry and I was rewarded with 2 hours of agony until the stomach slid back down where it belongs.
I can easily eat about 300 grams/10 oz of either or both in a day, but generally in two servings. Don't think I've ever hit a lb (so my sugar limits are safe, halleluah!) . ;-)
I think cruciferous veggies give lots of people issues, especially in large amounts, though. I have always felt lucky they don't me, since they are basically my favorites.0 -
-
mamapeach910 wrote: »You ate a pound of cauliflower ?mamapeach910 wrote: »Yup. I routinely eat about that at times.
No gas either.
It was roasted with smoked paprika and utterly delicious. I was having a hungry day.
I actually wish I could. Unfortunately, cauliflower and broccoli both digest very slowly and quantities like that make my hiatal hernia act up. Last time was a half pound of steamed broccoli because I was hungry and I was rewarded with 2 hours of agony until the stomach slid back down where it belongs.
Oh, that does sound painful. You poor thing!
An unfortunate consequence of 1) Genetics (my Dad had one too), 2) Age, and 3) being overweight, especially apple shaped (which is going down significantly with 111 lb gone and only forty more to go)
I stepped away from this thread since last evening so I could remain the calm, rational person you all know and (maybe?) love. What I still don't get is 1) why so many still equate the symptoms with the cause, and 2) why the anti-sugar advocates assume that everyone is advocating eating sugar willy-nilly. You don't HAVE to eat ice cream or a big-brand candy bar, but you CAN unless you have a medical condition that requires you to stay away. Even those WITH medical conditions have a large variance in how they should eat. I am T2Dm and have reduced my total carbs to a maximum of 180 g per my diabetic educator's orders (comes out to 35% of a 2000 calorie diet, which is my TDEE- 500 calories). She has also said that there is no reason for me to track sugars, total carbs is the important number. I reduced my a1c to normal and got off the meds within 10 months of diagnosis by doing that. Within that 180 g is fruit, lots of veggies, bread (I prefer whole grain and yes, there is sugar in it), dairy, and occasional higher carb things like beer, donuts, cookies, chocolate, sugar in my tea, and last night's cake (yummy). I even ate a Kit-Kat a couple of weeks ago. No, I don't drink sugary drinks because I actually prefer the taste of diet sodas over regular. We are not advocating eating tons of sugar. We are saying that it is OK to eat some, where it fits in your preferred or doctor prescribed way of eating.
Nice post. I was hoping you'd weigh back in, although I understand stepping away (I should).0 -
Yes, that is exactly how it works. You cannot say "my side of the debate doesn't have to be specific but the other side does." If asserting sugar is bad requires defining parameters in which it is so - and I tend to agree that it does so require - asserting it isn't also requires defining parameters for which it isn't so. Otherwise, both are imprecise, inaccurate statements.DeguelloTex wrote: »
No. That's not how it works. Saying that sugar isn't bad doesn't lack precision or correctness. If you want to assert that sugar is bad, you need to define precisely and correctly the parameters in which it is so. If X amount of sugar is bad, it's the X amount, rather than something inherent in the sugar. What's the X amount, then, in your view?And the specific person I responded to first made a blanket statement that sugar is not bad (again, as opposed to a precise and correct statement that it isn't bad in all quantities.0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »You ate a pound of cauliflower ?mamapeach910 wrote: »Yup. I routinely eat about that at times.
No gas either.
It was roasted with smoked paprika and utterly delicious. I was having a hungry day.
I actually wish I could. Unfortunately, cauliflower and broccoli both digest very slowly and quantities like that make my hiatal hernia act up. Last time was a half pound of steamed broccoli because I was hungry and I was rewarded with 2 hours of agony until the stomach slid back down where it belongs.
Oh, that does sound painful. You poor thing!
An unfortunate consequence of 1) Genetics (my Dad had one too), 2) Age, and 3) being overweight, especially apple shaped (which is going down significantly with 111 lb gone and only forty more to go)
I stepped away from this thread since last evening so I could remain the calm, rational person you all know and (maybe?) love. What I still don't get is 1) why so many still equate the symptoms with the cause, and 2) why the anti-sugar advocates assume that everyone is advocating eating sugar willy-nilly. You don't HAVE to eat ice cream or a big-brand candy bar, but you CAN unless you have a medical condition that requires you to stay away. Even those WITH medical conditions have a large variance in how they should eat. I am T2Dm and have reduced my total carbs to a maximum of 180 g per my diabetic educator's orders (comes out to 35% of a 2000 calorie diet, which is my TDEE- 500 calories). She has also said that there is no reason for me to track sugars, total carbs is the important number. I reduced my a1c to normal and got off the meds within 10 months of diagnosis by doing that. Within that 180 g is fruit, lots of veggies, bread (I prefer whole grain and yes, there is sugar in it), dairy, and occasional higher carb things like beer, donuts, cookies, chocolate, sugar in my tea, and last night's cake (yummy). I even ate a Kit-Kat a couple of weeks ago. No, I don't drink sugary drinks because I actually prefer the taste of diet sodas over regular. We are not advocating eating tons of sugar. We are saying that it is OK to eat some, where it fits in your preferred or doctor prescribed way of eating.
I just love when you and jgnatca come into threads and get told by the anti sugar people that you're wrong about diabetes.
Cracks me up.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »You are ignoring the context of this thread and what people actually said to make up a problem that you are then pretending to address.
I can hardly be making up something I quoted from someone else. The context is that a sudden knee-jerk reaction to comments saying sugars in processed foods are a concern did occur, and as such, members may respond to it. You are the one ignoring that context.Absolutely no one has a problem with the idea that excess sugar intake can have negative health effects (including, in large part that it often results in excess calories or nutritionally deficient diets--the WHO reasoning that many of us have repeatedly agreed with).
"Absolutely no one..." again, making blanket, broad statements and pretending that's not a problem. You didn't even bother to say "absolutely no one in this thread" or any other qualifier. Precision matters.As I said above, the debate is over what "excess" is,
Just because you said it does not mean everyone else has to follow those parameters of the "debate".Often it is suggested that ANY added sugar is bad (and here we have someone claiming that plus that two pieces of fruit are too much) and that's what we are arguing against.
Then you really shouldn't be arguing against me, since that is not something I have ever said. Yet what I say seems to be bugging you for some odd reason.Again, you are intentionally ignoring context. Everything is bad in excess--saying something isn't bad doesn't mean "go insane with it." Among other things, everyone says "within your calories and a nutritionally balanced diet" which makes it basically impossible to be extreme or eat huge amounts of sugar regularly (unless you are an endurance athlete and in pretty good shape/a bigger person, I suppose). The specific person we were talking to here was looking at a limit of 24 grams for ALL sugar! This is why you are being grouped with those who are anti all sugar--suggesting this is at all a thread about excess consumption raises questions about why you think that, as two pieces of fruit or the other things that have been recommended here are NOT excess, IMO (and I told you what I'd consider excess and not upthread).
And the specific person I responded to first made a blanket statement that sugar is not bad (again, as opposed to a precise and correct statement that it isn't bad in all quantities. Further, if one is going to say to stay "within your calories with a nutritionally balanced diet", then one needs to be receptive to arguments about things that can make it difficult to do so, and added sugars in high quantities often can (independent of their calorie contents alone). That is context you are ignoring - intentionally or not I do not know, since unlike you I cannot read minds.There are NO indications that this is relevant to OP's post
It isn't. It's relevant to other posts in this thread. If you are accusing me of not directly addressing the OP's question in many of my posts here, I stand guilty. But discussion threads have a tendency to go beyond the OP's defined parameters, and this thread is far from the only example, AND it had thus gone before I began my participation in it. If it is your contention that every post responding to another post unrelated to OP's question is out of bounds, aren't you doing the same thing by responding to my posts that you say aren't relevant to the OP's question?
You can tend to think anything you like, but just because "many people" don't experience cravings just because they eat foods high in added sugars doesn't mean others don't also. Just as the fact that most people who drink alcohol will not become alcoholics and have health issues associated with alcohol consumption doesn't mean that alcohol isn't a bigger risk factor to health than anything else we consume (water, for example), that many who eat sugary stuff won't have adverse effects doesn't mean that it cannot be a risk factor for metabolic disease. You say people are not for excess consumption, yet, posts that express concern about excess sugar consumption are suddenly labeled with extremism, including by yourself. And I didn't "bring it out of the blue" - that debate had been going on in this thread for some time before I arrived in it.and many, many people don't experience cravings just because they eat food with sugar. Indeed, I tend to think that's a psychological reaction basically encouraged by labeling sugar as a whole "bad." Thus, bringing it in out of the blue as a reason to avoid sugar and to claim that eating any sugar makes meeting a calorie goal difficult--when OP was specifically asking the common question about whether sugar mattered IF you, among other things, were meeting that goal, and when everyone had said that IF you are meeting your goal it's not a problem--supports the conclusion that you ARE part of the more extreme anti sugar sorts. Clearly if someone tries and cannot meet their limit then they should figure out what's going on and look at whether there's some reason they are overeating despite knowing what they should eat.
Half of this does not make any sense. If you are referring to me making a blanket statement that "sugar is not bad," you are absolutely wrong and you obviously did not read what I posted (what a surprise).
You are projecting your issues with sugar onto the rest of us in this thread. No, sugar is not bad in and of itself - excess sugar is bad. The same can be said for excess calories, excess alcohol, excess television, excess exercise, excess oxygen, etc.
If you experience cravings from eating sugary foods that taste yummy, then by all means, don't eat them. Although I think it would be hard to never eat a piece of cake again in your life, but whatever. You need to understand that not everyone has this issue, though, and that eating sugary foods even above the arbitrary and all-inclusive number that MFP gives us is not going to do us any harm in the context of a balanced diet and active lifestyle.0 -
In the absence of a medical condition, if you're staying without your calorie limit, hitting your macros, and getting good coverage on your micros, you're not eating too much sugar. Pretty much like people have written on nearly every page of this thread.
Yes, that is exactly how it works. You cannot say "my side of the debate doesn't have to be specific but the other side does." If asserting sugar is bad requires defining parameters in which it is so - and I tend to agree that it does so require - asserting it isn't also requires defining parameters for which it isn't so. Otherwise, both are imprecise, inaccurate statements.DeguelloTex wrote: »
No. That's not how it works. Saying that sugar isn't bad doesn't lack precision or correctness. If you want to assert that sugar is bad, you need to define precisely and correctly the parameters in which it is so. If X amount of sugar is bad, it's the X amount, rather than something inherent in the sugar. What's the X amount, then, in your view?And the specific person I responded to first made a blanket statement that sugar is not bad (again, as opposed to a precise and correct statement that it isn't bad in all quantities.
And the issue is "excess sugar" not "absence of excess sugar" so the burden is on those asserting excess sugar to define what excess means here.
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
In the absence of a medical condition, if you're staying without your calorie limit, hitting your macros, and getting good coverage on your micros, you're not eating too much sugar. Pretty much like people have written on nearly every page of this thread.
Yes, that is exactly how it works. You cannot say "my side of the debate doesn't have to be specific but the other side does." If asserting sugar is bad requires defining parameters in which it is so - and I tend to agree that it does so require - asserting it isn't also requires defining parameters for which it isn't so. Otherwise, both are imprecise, inaccurate statements.DeguelloTex wrote: »
No. That's not how it works. Saying that sugar isn't bad doesn't lack precision or correctness. If you want to assert that sugar is bad, you need to define precisely and correctly the parameters in which it is so. If X amount of sugar is bad, it's the X amount, rather than something inherent in the sugar. What's the X amount, then, in your view?And the specific person I responded to first made a blanket statement that sugar is not bad (again, as opposed to a precise and correct statement that it isn't bad in all quantities.
And the issue is "excess sugar" not "absence of excess sugar" so the burden is on those asserting excess sugar to define what excess means here.
But we were clearly just making blanket statements and not being specific enough.0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
Let me first reiterate what I said - that long term AND excess refined sugar intake can cause medical issues (NOT that any refined sugar intake at all is a problem). The link you provided proves that point. From that very link:stevencloser wrote: »
And excess and long-term refined sugar intake.ihatetodietalways wrote: »Diabetes Epidemic & You, by Dr. J.R. Kraft. He is a renowned doctor in Chicago and he publishes the fact that fasting glucose can miss 20% of diabetics. Yes. He has looked at 15,000 people from age 3-90. There is a lot of information in this book.
And there are TONS of papers about low carb diets. Phinney, Volek, Pulmetter, Noakes, Attia, and others are leading the research.
Stop telling people to eat sugars and instead tell them, go check your fasting insulin with a simple blood test at the doctor. Furthermore, since insulin resistance is a true phenomenon (it is observed before pre-diabetes), we may want to give our pancreas a break and take the carbs slowly. I don't vilify sugar and carbs. There are people who chose to limit them. That is all.
You are equating people with a medical reason for reducing carbs with people who have normal pancreatic function (the majority of the population). They are not the same. Too many carbs does not cause insulin resistance, diabetes, etc. The inability to properly regulate blood glucose is the main SYMPTOM of those medical issues. The causes are many and include:- genetics
- excess weight
- age
- long term use of certain medications, including statins and antidepressants
Nope.
http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/myths/
Note, that says sugar-sweetened beverages should be avoided to PREVENT diabetes, not simply to manage one's existing diabetes.The American Diabetes Association recommends that people should avoid intake of sugar-sweetened beverages to help prevent diabetes. Sugar-sweetened beverages include beverages like:
regular soda
fruit punch
fruit drinks
energy drinks
sports drinks
sweet tea
other sugary drinks
In fact, the ADA source you linked supports the idea that long term and (not or) excess refined sugar intake can cause diabetes. It supports the intake of sugars and desserts in moderated amounts as part of a balanced diet and specifically tells people to avoid drinks with high added sugar contents.
Have you read it? It specifically lists that sugar doesn't cause diabetes, just that consumption of sugar sweetened beverages in particular (no other food things, just drinks with sugar in it) is correlated with diabetes. A phrase whose underlying truth that can range from something like the connection betweeen the amount of people swimming and ice cream sales being correlated to possible causation.
I'd be willing to bet that the correlation with sugar-sweetened beverages stems from the fact that many people get all of their hydration from sodas or juice. There are indeed people who do not drink any water, and those people probably drink a lot of calories without realizing it, which adds to their overall calorie surplus leading to weight gain and to health effects like diabetes and heart disease.
Which is probably why some people can say "All I did was cut out sodas and lost 20 pounds!" If you eat at maintenance but drink 2 cans of Coke a day and an 8-oz glass of orange juice, that is nearly a 400-calorie surplus right there.
It's not the sugar in the sodas, it's the calories in them that people don't track. They really add up.
QFT.
During my run up to my max weight, my one constant was a 2-liter bottle of Coke Classic. I would drink at least half a bottle every night (and let's not talk about the fountain sodas during the day). Anecdotal, of course, but I'm guessing the 600-800 calories of soda every day was a more plausible reason for my obesity than sugar demons magically expanding the fat cells in my lower stomach area (and really, what the *kitten* was that about?).
There is another wonderful person on this site who has now lost 82 pounds. She often cites her former excess consumption of Coke to be behind her former obesity. She still drinks it just about daily. Just tiny amount at dinner, and logs it.
She looks FABULOUS. @TheVirgoddess
0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »You are ignoring the context of this thread and what people actually said to make up a problem that you are then pretending to address.
I can hardly be making up something I quoted from someone else. The context is that a sudden knee-jerk reaction to comments saying sugars in processed foods are a concern did occur, and as such, members may respond to it. You are the one ignoring that context.Absolutely no one has a problem with the idea that excess sugar intake can have negative health effects (including, in large part that it often results in excess calories or nutritionally deficient diets--the WHO reasoning that many of us have repeatedly agreed with).
"Absolutely no one..." again, making blanket, broad statements and pretending that's not a problem. You didn't even bother to say "absolutely no one in this thread" or any other qualifier. Precision matters.As I said above, the debate is over what "excess" is,
Just because you said it does not mean everyone else has to follow those parameters of the "debate".Often it is suggested that ANY added sugar is bad (and here we have someone claiming that plus that two pieces of fruit are too much) and that's what we are arguing against.
Then you really shouldn't be arguing against me, since that is not something I have ever said. Yet what I say seems to be bugging you for some odd reason.Again, you are intentionally ignoring context. Everything is bad in excess--saying something isn't bad doesn't mean "go insane with it." Among other things, everyone says "within your calories and a nutritionally balanced diet" which makes it basically impossible to be extreme or eat huge amounts of sugar regularly (unless you are an endurance athlete and in pretty good shape/a bigger person, I suppose). The specific person we were talking to here was looking at a limit of 24 grams for ALL sugar! This is why you are being grouped with those who are anti all sugar--suggesting this is at all a thread about excess consumption raises questions about why you think that, as two pieces of fruit or the other things that have been recommended here are NOT excess, IMO (and I told you what I'd consider excess and not upthread).
And the specific person I responded to first made a blanket statement that sugar is not bad (again, as opposed to a precise and correct statement that it isn't bad in all quantities. Further, if one is going to say to stay "within your calories with a nutritionally balanced diet", then one needs to be receptive to arguments about things that can make it difficult to do so, and added sugars in high quantities often can (independent of their calorie contents alone). That is context you are ignoring - intentionally or not I do not know, since unlike you I cannot read minds.There are NO indications that this is relevant to OP's post
It isn't. It's relevant to other posts in this thread. If you are accusing me of not directly addressing the OP's question in many of my posts here, I stand guilty. But discussion threads have a tendency to go beyond the OP's defined parameters, and this thread is far from the only example, AND it had thus gone before I began my participation in it. If it is your contention that every post responding to another post unrelated to OP's question is out of bounds, aren't you doing the same thing by responding to my posts that you say aren't relevant to the OP's question?
You can tend to think anything you like, but just because "many people" don't experience cravings just because they eat foods high in added sugars doesn't mean others don't also. Just as the fact that most people who drink alcohol will not become alcoholics and have health issues associated with alcohol consumption doesn't mean that alcohol isn't a bigger risk factor to health than anything else we consume (water, for example), that many who eat sugary stuff won't have adverse effects doesn't mean that it cannot be a risk factor for metabolic disease. You say people are not for excess consumption, yet, posts that express concern about excess sugar consumption are suddenly labeled with extremism, including by yourself. And I didn't "bring it out of the blue" - that debate had been going on in this thread for some time before I arrived in it.and many, many people don't experience cravings just because they eat food with sugar. Indeed, I tend to think that's a psychological reaction basically encouraged by labeling sugar as a whole "bad." Thus, bringing it in out of the blue as a reason to avoid sugar and to claim that eating any sugar makes meeting a calorie goal difficult--when OP was specifically asking the common question about whether sugar mattered IF you, among other things, were meeting that goal, and when everyone had said that IF you are meeting your goal it's not a problem--supports the conclusion that you ARE part of the more extreme anti sugar sorts. Clearly if someone tries and cannot meet their limit then they should figure out what's going on and look at whether there's some reason they are overeating despite knowing what they should eat.
Half of this does not make any sense. If you are referring to me making a blanket statement that "sugar is not bad," you are absolutely wrong and you obviously did not read what I posted (what a surprise).
You are projecting your issues with sugar onto the rest of us in this thread. No, sugar is not bad in and of itself - excess sugar is bad. The same can be said for excess calories, excess alcohol, excess television, excess exercise, excess oxygen, etc.
If you experience cravings from eating sugary foods that taste yummy, then by all means, don't eat them. Although I think it would be hard to never eat a piece of cake again in your life, but whatever. You need to understand that not everyone has this issue, though, and that eating sugary foods even above the arbitrary and all-inclusive number that MFP gives us is not going to do us any harm in the context of a balanced diet and active lifestyle.
No, you are not the one I am referring to when I talk about the start of my participation in this thread. I responded to you only after you went off on me talking about "anti-sugar brigade". But I do find it odd you suddenly thought this WAS directed at you...0 -
Monklady123 wrote: »Lol at this thread. I'm new here and was fascinated to see a 9-page thread about sugar. Full confession: I have not read all nine pages.
As for sugar, I'm cutting out most "empty" sugar -- i.e., cookies, cake, and my personal downfall Snickers. Was this thread originally about fruit? I'm not cutting that out at all, except for watermelon which for some reason, sadly, upsets my stomach.
I'm also not worrying about added sugar in things like ketchup, or salad dressing, etc. At least not right now. I don't eat enough of it to worry about and if I'm having french fries then I'm having ketchup or else what's the point? lol.
Anyway, I belong to another message board community that has its own "touchy" subjects (religion and politics would be two biggies, although some of the most innocent things can derail quickly, lol), and it looks like sugar is one of those subjects here. I might read all nine pages, or I might not. lol
Welcome, MonkLady. Yes, amusingly enough, this thread was about fruit, specifically the apparent extreme excess of eating two whole servings.
I don't think it's necessary to cut out even sweets (or indulgences, in which I'd group sweets, but also other high calorie items like cheese, or Chicago-style pizza, or my kryponite naan with curry), but I definitely understand cutting that stuff way back, especially when you have a lower calorie level and are trying to get used to a new plan or way of eating that stresses perhaps more nutrient-dense foods than you were eating before. Like I said, I thought about my diet and figured out where my excess calories were coming from and cut back on those things. For example, I go out for Indian about once a month now, vs the rather more frequent amounts I'd get Indian delivery before. I also eat ice cream probably more often, but only a serving vs. half a pint out of the carton, and I've cut out the rather pointless (because not truly loved by me) sweets I'd eat just because they appeared at my office and so I assumed I was meant to eat them in some cosmic sense. ;-)
I think one pet peeve that some of us have is seeing this all as about sugar in that in fact sugar is in many very nutrient dense foods (like fruits, veggies, dairy), and the problem with all of the items I've mentioned--if consumed in excess--is calories, not sugar. And those calories are partly from sugar but often more from fat or other carbs besides sugar itself. For example, I ran a cookie recipe through MFP and found that the number of calories from sugar was pretty low (less than in an average apple). The highest number of calories were from butter.
Anyway, like I said, welcome. I think there is spirited debate, but if you are open to it it can be fun and lots of good information is shared (and some not so good, of course).0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »You are ignoring the context of this thread and what people actually said to make up a problem that you are then pretending to address.
I can hardly be making up something I quoted from someone else. The context is that a sudden knee-jerk reaction to comments saying sugars in processed foods are a concern did occur, and as such, members may respond to it. You are the one ignoring that context.Absolutely no one has a problem with the idea that excess sugar intake can have negative health effects (including, in large part that it often results in excess calories or nutritionally deficient diets--the WHO reasoning that many of us have repeatedly agreed with).
"Absolutely no one..." again, making blanket, broad statements and pretending that's not a problem. You didn't even bother to say "absolutely no one in this thread" or any other qualifier. Precision matters.As I said above, the debate is over what "excess" is,
Just because you said it does not mean everyone else has to follow those parameters of the "debate".Often it is suggested that ANY added sugar is bad (and here we have someone claiming that plus that two pieces of fruit are too much) and that's what we are arguing against.
Then you really shouldn't be arguing against me, since that is not something I have ever said. Yet what I say seems to be bugging you for some odd reason.Again, you are intentionally ignoring context. Everything is bad in excess--saying something isn't bad doesn't mean "go insane with it." Among other things, everyone says "within your calories and a nutritionally balanced diet" which makes it basically impossible to be extreme or eat huge amounts of sugar regularly (unless you are an endurance athlete and in pretty good shape/a bigger person, I suppose). The specific person we were talking to here was looking at a limit of 24 grams for ALL sugar! This is why you are being grouped with those who are anti all sugar--suggesting this is at all a thread about excess consumption raises questions about why you think that, as two pieces of fruit or the other things that have been recommended here are NOT excess, IMO (and I told you what I'd consider excess and not upthread).
And the specific person I responded to first made a blanket statement that sugar is not bad (again, as opposed to a precise and correct statement that it isn't bad in all quantities. Further, if one is going to say to stay "within your calories with a nutritionally balanced diet", then one needs to be receptive to arguments about things that can make it difficult to do so, and added sugars in high quantities often can (independent of their calorie contents alone). That is context you are ignoring - intentionally or not I do not know, since unlike you I cannot read minds.There are NO indications that this is relevant to OP's post
It isn't. It's relevant to other posts in this thread. If you are accusing me of not directly addressing the OP's question in many of my posts here, I stand guilty. But discussion threads have a tendency to go beyond the OP's defined parameters, and this thread is far from the only example, AND it had thus gone before I began my participation in it. If it is your contention that every post responding to another post unrelated to OP's question is out of bounds, aren't you doing the same thing by responding to my posts that you say aren't relevant to the OP's question?
You can tend to think anything you like, but just because "many people" don't experience cravings just because they eat foods high in added sugars doesn't mean others don't also. Just as the fact that most people who drink alcohol will not become alcoholics and have health issues associated with alcohol consumption doesn't mean that alcohol isn't a bigger risk factor to health than anything else we consume (water, for example), that many who eat sugary stuff won't have adverse effects doesn't mean that it cannot be a risk factor for metabolic disease. You say people are not for excess consumption, yet, posts that express concern about excess sugar consumption are suddenly labeled with extremism, including by yourself. And I didn't "bring it out of the blue" - that debate had been going on in this thread for some time before I arrived in it.and many, many people don't experience cravings just because they eat food with sugar. Indeed, I tend to think that's a psychological reaction basically encouraged by labeling sugar as a whole "bad." Thus, bringing it in out of the blue as a reason to avoid sugar and to claim that eating any sugar makes meeting a calorie goal difficult--when OP was specifically asking the common question about whether sugar mattered IF you, among other things, were meeting that goal, and when everyone had said that IF you are meeting your goal it's not a problem--supports the conclusion that you ARE part of the more extreme anti sugar sorts. Clearly if someone tries and cannot meet their limit then they should figure out what's going on and look at whether there's some reason they are overeating despite knowing what they should eat.
Half of this does not make any sense. If you are referring to me making a blanket statement that "sugar is not bad," you are absolutely wrong and you obviously did not read what I posted (what a surprise).
You are projecting your issues with sugar onto the rest of us in this thread. No, sugar is not bad in and of itself - excess sugar is bad. The same can be said for excess calories, excess alcohol, excess television, excess exercise, excess oxygen, etc.
If you experience cravings from eating sugary foods that taste yummy, then by all means, don't eat them. Although I think it would be hard to never eat a piece of cake again in your life, but whatever. You need to understand that not everyone has this issue, though, and that eating sugary foods even above the arbitrary and all-inclusive number that MFP gives us is not going to do us any harm in the context of a balanced diet and active lifestyle.
I'd save myself if I were you.
He's leading this topic down the alleyway to a dumpster fire with his pedantry.
0 -
Is it time for Grumpy Cat gifs yet?
0 -
0
-
You can tend to think anything you like, but just because "many people" don't experience cravings just because they eat foods high in added sugars doesn't mean others don't also. Just as the fact that most people who drink alcohol will not become alcoholics and have health issues associated with alcohol consumption doesn't mean that alcohol isn't a bigger risk factor to health than anything else we consume (water, for example)
And yet it would be nutty to tell someone who said she had a couple of drinks a week that she should watch out because drinking tended to lead to alcoholism. Yet that's basically what you are doing here.
If someone has trouble keeping to their calorie limit, considering why is important. Saying they should worry about consuming sugar when they don't have such issues -- and no one in the thread mentioned such issues (which again I think are likely to be psychological and brought on by such claims as yours and the idea that sugar is "bad") -- is not reasonably relevant. It seems weird to bring it up unless you want to claim that "excess" means, well, any.
Point to a post where someone said eating sugar regularly in excess or exceeding one's calories when one is trying to lose weight are good things to do.0 -
This is precise and correct. All I'm asking for.DeguelloTex wrote: »
In the absence of a medical condition, if you're staying without your calorie limit, hitting your macros, and getting good coverage on your micros, you're not eating too much sugar. Pretty much like people have written on nearly every page of this thread.
Yes, that is exactly how it works. You cannot say "my side of the debate doesn't have to be specific but the other side does." If asserting sugar is bad requires defining parameters in which it is so - and I tend to agree that it does so require - asserting it isn't also requires defining parameters for which it isn't so. Otherwise, both are imprecise, inaccurate statements.DeguelloTex wrote: »
No. That's not how it works. Saying that sugar isn't bad doesn't lack precision or correctness. If you want to assert that sugar is bad, you need to define precisely and correctly the parameters in which it is so. If X amount of sugar is bad, it's the X amount, rather than something inherent in the sugar. What's the X amount, then, in your view?And the specific person I responded to first made a blanket statement that sugar is not bad (again, as opposed to a precise and correct statement that it isn't bad in all quantities.
Well, one may frame the issue as "added sugar consumption is safe", in which case the burden falls to those asserting its safety and thus defining the parameters and quantity of that safe limit - which you just did above. To me, that statement ("added sugar consumption is safe") is a bad scientific statement as the answer to the question "is added sugar consumption safe?" is "it depends on how much and how long."And the issue is "excess sugar" not "absence of excess sugar" so the burden is on those asserting excess sugar to define what excess means here.0 -
debbiepringle wrote: »Every day I go way over on my sugar. 98% of it is from fresh fruits. Today I am already over by 24g.have a lot of sugar but most of it is from 1 banana at 14 g and strawberry salad from Wendys at 13 g. Can this sugar be ignored in the counter? If not how can you possibly stay under the daily intake of 24g.
I have not read the other postings, so this is probably repetitive.
You do not have to worry about sugar unless you have a medical condition. I suggest eating everything in moderation.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »You can tend to think anything you like, but just because "many people" don't experience cravings just because they eat foods high in added sugars doesn't mean others don't also. Just as the fact that most people who drink alcohol will not become alcoholics and have health issues associated with alcohol consumption doesn't mean that alcohol isn't a bigger risk factor to health than anything else we consume (water, for example)
And yet it would be nutty to tell someone who said she had a couple of drinks a week that she should watch out because drinking tended to lead to alcoholism. Yet that's basically what you are doing here.
No, that is absolutely not what I'm doing here. In fact in one of my responses I was clear that the OP was fine and didn't need to be concerned.If someone has trouble keeping to their calorie limit, considering why is important. Saying they should worry about consuming sugar when they don't have such issues -- and no one in the thread mentioned such issues (which again I think are likely to be psychological and brought on by such claims as yours and the idea that sugar is "bad") -- is not reasonably relevant.
Except I never said that.Point to a post where someone said eating sugar regularly in excess or exceeding one's calories when one is trying to lose weight are good things to do.
Nobody did this directly, but the adverse reaction to comments about excess consumption and the tendency to group those commenters as nutty anti-sugar crusaders is hardly better.0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »You are ignoring the context of this thread and what people actually said to make up a problem that you are then pretending to address.
I can hardly be making up something I quoted from someone else. The context is that a sudden knee-jerk reaction to comments saying sugars in processed foods are a concern did occur, and as such, members may respond to it. You are the one ignoring that context.Absolutely no one has a problem with the idea that excess sugar intake can have negative health effects (including, in large part that it often results in excess calories or nutritionally deficient diets--the WHO reasoning that many of us have repeatedly agreed with).
"Absolutely no one..." again, making blanket, broad statements and pretending that's not a problem. You didn't even bother to say "absolutely no one in this thread" or any other qualifier. Precision matters.As I said above, the debate is over what "excess" is,
Just because you said it does not mean everyone else has to follow those parameters of the "debate".Often it is suggested that ANY added sugar is bad (and here we have someone claiming that plus that two pieces of fruit are too much) and that's what we are arguing against.
Then you really shouldn't be arguing against me, since that is not something I have ever said. Yet what I say seems to be bugging you for some odd reason.Again, you are intentionally ignoring context. Everything is bad in excess--saying something isn't bad doesn't mean "go insane with it." Among other things, everyone says "within your calories and a nutritionally balanced diet" which makes it basically impossible to be extreme or eat huge amounts of sugar regularly (unless you are an endurance athlete and in pretty good shape/a bigger person, I suppose). The specific person we were talking to here was looking at a limit of 24 grams for ALL sugar! This is why you are being grouped with those who are anti all sugar--suggesting this is at all a thread about excess consumption raises questions about why you think that, as two pieces of fruit or the other things that have been recommended here are NOT excess, IMO (and I told you what I'd consider excess and not upthread).
And the specific person I responded to first made a blanket statement that sugar is not bad (again, as opposed to a precise and correct statement that it isn't bad in all quantities. Further, if one is going to say to stay "within your calories with a nutritionally balanced diet", then one needs to be receptive to arguments about things that can make it difficult to do so, and added sugars in high quantities often can (independent of their calorie contents alone). That is context you are ignoring - intentionally or not I do not know, since unlike you I cannot read minds.There are NO indications that this is relevant to OP's post
It isn't. It's relevant to other posts in this thread. If you are accusing me of not directly addressing the OP's question in many of my posts here, I stand guilty. But discussion threads have a tendency to go beyond the OP's defined parameters, and this thread is far from the only example, AND it had thus gone before I began my participation in it. If it is your contention that every post responding to another post unrelated to OP's question is out of bounds, aren't you doing the same thing by responding to my posts that you say aren't relevant to the OP's question?
You can tend to think anything you like, but just because "many people" don't experience cravings just because they eat foods high in added sugars doesn't mean others don't also. Just as the fact that most people who drink alcohol will not become alcoholics and have health issues associated with alcohol consumption doesn't mean that alcohol isn't a bigger risk factor to health than anything else we consume (water, for example), that many who eat sugary stuff won't have adverse effects doesn't mean that it cannot be a risk factor for metabolic disease. You say people are not for excess consumption, yet, posts that express concern about excess sugar consumption are suddenly labeled with extremism, including by yourself. And I didn't "bring it out of the blue" - that debate had been going on in this thread for some time before I arrived in it.and many, many people don't experience cravings just because they eat food with sugar. Indeed, I tend to think that's a psychological reaction basically encouraged by labeling sugar as a whole "bad." Thus, bringing it in out of the blue as a reason to avoid sugar and to claim that eating any sugar makes meeting a calorie goal difficult--when OP was specifically asking the common question about whether sugar mattered IF you, among other things, were meeting that goal, and when everyone had said that IF you are meeting your goal it's not a problem--supports the conclusion that you ARE part of the more extreme anti sugar sorts. Clearly if someone tries and cannot meet their limit then they should figure out what's going on and look at whether there's some reason they are overeating despite knowing what they should eat.
Half of this does not make any sense. If you are referring to me making a blanket statement that "sugar is not bad," you are absolutely wrong and you obviously did not read what I posted (what a surprise).
You are projecting your issues with sugar onto the rest of us in this thread. No, sugar is not bad in and of itself - excess sugar is bad. The same can be said for excess calories, excess alcohol, excess television, excess exercise, excess oxygen, etc.
If you experience cravings from eating sugary foods that taste yummy, then by all means, don't eat them. Although I think it would be hard to never eat a piece of cake again in your life, but whatever. You need to understand that not everyone has this issue, though, and that eating sugary foods even above the arbitrary and all-inclusive number that MFP gives us is not going to do us any harm in the context of a balanced diet and active lifestyle.
No, you are not the one I am referring to when I talk about the start of my participation in this thread. I responded to you only after you went off on me talking about "anti-sugar brigade". But I do find it odd you suddenly thought this WAS directed at you...
Well considering that this stemmed from a response to my quoted reply, then I don't see how it would be odd that I would wonder whether you were referring to me or not. Especially considering that your arguments thus far have not made a lot of sense.0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »You are ignoring the context of this thread and what people actually said to make up a problem that you are then pretending to address.
I can hardly be making up something I quoted from someone else. The context is that a sudden knee-jerk reaction to comments saying sugars in processed foods are a concern did occur, and as such, members may respond to it. You are the one ignoring that context.Absolutely no one has a problem with the idea that excess sugar intake can have negative health effects (including, in large part that it often results in excess calories or nutritionally deficient diets--the WHO reasoning that many of us have repeatedly agreed with).
"Absolutely no one..." again, making blanket, broad statements and pretending that's not a problem. You didn't even bother to say "absolutely no one in this thread" or any other qualifier. Precision matters.As I said above, the debate is over what "excess" is,
Just because you said it does not mean everyone else has to follow those parameters of the "debate".Often it is suggested that ANY added sugar is bad (and here we have someone claiming that plus that two pieces of fruit are too much) and that's what we are arguing against.
Then you really shouldn't be arguing against me, since that is not something I have ever said. Yet what I say seems to be bugging you for some odd reason.Again, you are intentionally ignoring context. Everything is bad in excess--saying something isn't bad doesn't mean "go insane with it." Among other things, everyone says "within your calories and a nutritionally balanced diet" which makes it basically impossible to be extreme or eat huge amounts of sugar regularly (unless you are an endurance athlete and in pretty good shape/a bigger person, I suppose). The specific person we were talking to here was looking at a limit of 24 grams for ALL sugar! This is why you are being grouped with those who are anti all sugar--suggesting this is at all a thread about excess consumption raises questions about why you think that, as two pieces of fruit or the other things that have been recommended here are NOT excess, IMO (and I told you what I'd consider excess and not upthread).
And the specific person I responded to first made a blanket statement that sugar is not bad (again, as opposed to a precise and correct statement that it isn't bad in all quantities. Further, if one is going to say to stay "within your calories with a nutritionally balanced diet", then one needs to be receptive to arguments about things that can make it difficult to do so, and added sugars in high quantities often can (independent of their calorie contents alone). That is context you are ignoring - intentionally or not I do not know, since unlike you I cannot read minds.There are NO indications that this is relevant to OP's post
It isn't. It's relevant to other posts in this thread. If you are accusing me of not directly addressing the OP's question in many of my posts here, I stand guilty. But discussion threads have a tendency to go beyond the OP's defined parameters, and this thread is far from the only example, AND it had thus gone before I began my participation in it. If it is your contention that every post responding to another post unrelated to OP's question is out of bounds, aren't you doing the same thing by responding to my posts that you say aren't relevant to the OP's question?
You can tend to think anything you like, but just because "many people" don't experience cravings just because they eat foods high in added sugars doesn't mean others don't also. Just as the fact that most people who drink alcohol will not become alcoholics and have health issues associated with alcohol consumption doesn't mean that alcohol isn't a bigger risk factor to health than anything else we consume (water, for example), that many who eat sugary stuff won't have adverse effects doesn't mean that it cannot be a risk factor for metabolic disease. You say people are not for excess consumption, yet, posts that express concern about excess sugar consumption are suddenly labeled with extremism, including by yourself. And I didn't "bring it out of the blue" - that debate had been going on in this thread for some time before I arrived in it.and many, many people don't experience cravings just because they eat food with sugar. Indeed, I tend to think that's a psychological reaction basically encouraged by labeling sugar as a whole "bad." Thus, bringing it in out of the blue as a reason to avoid sugar and to claim that eating any sugar makes meeting a calorie goal difficult--when OP was specifically asking the common question about whether sugar mattered IF you, among other things, were meeting that goal, and when everyone had said that IF you are meeting your goal it's not a problem--supports the conclusion that you ARE part of the more extreme anti sugar sorts. Clearly if someone tries and cannot meet their limit then they should figure out what's going on and look at whether there's some reason they are overeating despite knowing what they should eat.
Half of this does not make any sense. If you are referring to me making a blanket statement that "sugar is not bad," you are absolutely wrong and you obviously did not read what I posted (what a surprise).
You are projecting your issues with sugar onto the rest of us in this thread. No, sugar is not bad in and of itself - excess sugar is bad. The same can be said for excess calories, excess alcohol, excess television, excess exercise, excess oxygen, etc.
If you experience cravings from eating sugary foods that taste yummy, then by all means, don't eat them. Although I think it would be hard to never eat a piece of cake again in your life, but whatever. You need to understand that not everyone has this issue, though, and that eating sugary foods even above the arbitrary and all-inclusive number that MFP gives us is not going to do us any harm in the context of a balanced diet and active lifestyle.
I'd save myself if I were you.
He's leading this topic down the alleyway to a dumpster fire with his pedantry.
I know
Some days it's so hard to help myself.
Also work is slow today.0 -
ceoverturf wrote: »Is it time for Grumpy Cat gifs yet?
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Well, they raise blood sugar because they have added sugar... I mean you can't get sugar from no sugar, right? And consistently (and artificially) elevated blood sugar levels are a risk factor for diabetes for those who currently do not have the disease.
Blood glucose arises from any digestible carbohydrate not just sugar let alone "added" or "refined" sugar. Your liver also makes it - one aspect of diabetes is overproduction internally, you don't get a high fasting blood sugar from what you ate.
Adding to that, yes you can get sugar from no sugar. Through a process called gluconeogenesis. @deaniac83
I see. And I assume it is your contention that it is glocogenesis that results in blood sugar spikes from sugary drinks the ADA advises we avoid to PREVENT diabetes?
No, I was correcting you on getting sugar out of no sugar. It only makes sense that your body can make sugar when you're not eating enough, too low blood sugar is bad for you too after all.
And again, "a link" may mean nothing at all, something you routinely ignore, as well as that they say sugar sweetened beverages in particular instead of sugar.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
This woman is like a correct answer machine on any thread.strong_curves wrote: »I don't even track my sugars.
Jeopardy!0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »You are ignoring the context of this thread and what people actually said to make up a problem that you are then pretending to address.
I can hardly be making up something I quoted from someone else. The context is that a sudden knee-jerk reaction to comments saying sugars in processed foods are a concern did occur, and as such, members may respond to it. You are the one ignoring that context.Absolutely no one has a problem with the idea that excess sugar intake can have negative health effects (including, in large part that it often results in excess calories or nutritionally deficient diets--the WHO reasoning that many of us have repeatedly agreed with).
"Absolutely no one..." again, making blanket, broad statements and pretending that's not a problem. You didn't even bother to say "absolutely no one in this thread" or any other qualifier. Precision matters.As I said above, the debate is over what "excess" is,
Just because you said it does not mean everyone else has to follow those parameters of the "debate".Often it is suggested that ANY added sugar is bad (and here we have someone claiming that plus that two pieces of fruit are too much) and that's what we are arguing against.
Then you really shouldn't be arguing against me, since that is not something I have ever said. Yet what I say seems to be bugging you for some odd reason.Again, you are intentionally ignoring context. Everything is bad in excess--saying something isn't bad doesn't mean "go insane with it." Among other things, everyone says "within your calories and a nutritionally balanced diet" which makes it basically impossible to be extreme or eat huge amounts of sugar regularly (unless you are an endurance athlete and in pretty good shape/a bigger person, I suppose). The specific person we were talking to here was looking at a limit of 24 grams for ALL sugar! This is why you are being grouped with those who are anti all sugar--suggesting this is at all a thread about excess consumption raises questions about why you think that, as two pieces of fruit or the other things that have been recommended here are NOT excess, IMO (and I told you what I'd consider excess and not upthread).
And the specific person I responded to first made a blanket statement that sugar is not bad (again, as opposed to a precise and correct statement that it isn't bad in all quantities. Further, if one is going to say to stay "within your calories with a nutritionally balanced diet", then one needs to be receptive to arguments about things that can make it difficult to do so, and added sugars in high quantities often can (independent of their calorie contents alone). That is context you are ignoring - intentionally or not I do not know, since unlike you I cannot read minds.There are NO indications that this is relevant to OP's post
It isn't. It's relevant to other posts in this thread. If you are accusing me of not directly addressing the OP's question in many of my posts here, I stand guilty. But discussion threads have a tendency to go beyond the OP's defined parameters, and this thread is far from the only example, AND it had thus gone before I began my participation in it. If it is your contention that every post responding to another post unrelated to OP's question is out of bounds, aren't you doing the same thing by responding to my posts that you say aren't relevant to the OP's question?
You can tend to think anything you like, but just because "many people" don't experience cravings just because they eat foods high in added sugars doesn't mean others don't also. Just as the fact that most people who drink alcohol will not become alcoholics and have health issues associated with alcohol consumption doesn't mean that alcohol isn't a bigger risk factor to health than anything else we consume (water, for example), that many who eat sugary stuff won't have adverse effects doesn't mean that it cannot be a risk factor for metabolic disease. You say people are not for excess consumption, yet, posts that express concern about excess sugar consumption are suddenly labeled with extremism, including by yourself. And I didn't "bring it out of the blue" - that debate had been going on in this thread for some time before I arrived in it.and many, many people don't experience cravings just because they eat food with sugar. Indeed, I tend to think that's a psychological reaction basically encouraged by labeling sugar as a whole "bad." Thus, bringing it in out of the blue as a reason to avoid sugar and to claim that eating any sugar makes meeting a calorie goal difficult--when OP was specifically asking the common question about whether sugar mattered IF you, among other things, were meeting that goal, and when everyone had said that IF you are meeting your goal it's not a problem--supports the conclusion that you ARE part of the more extreme anti sugar sorts. Clearly if someone tries and cannot meet their limit then they should figure out what's going on and look at whether there's some reason they are overeating despite knowing what they should eat.
Half of this does not make any sense. If you are referring to me making a blanket statement that "sugar is not bad," you are absolutely wrong and you obviously did not read what I posted (what a surprise).
You are projecting your issues with sugar onto the rest of us in this thread. No, sugar is not bad in and of itself - excess sugar is bad. The same can be said for excess calories, excess alcohol, excess television, excess exercise, excess oxygen, etc.
If you experience cravings from eating sugary foods that taste yummy, then by all means, don't eat them. Although I think it would be hard to never eat a piece of cake again in your life, but whatever. You need to understand that not everyone has this issue, though, and that eating sugary foods even above the arbitrary and all-inclusive number that MFP gives us is not going to do us any harm in the context of a balanced diet and active lifestyle.
No, you are not the one I am referring to when I talk about the start of my participation in this thread. I responded to you only after you went off on me talking about "anti-sugar brigade". But I do find it odd you suddenly thought this WAS directed at you...
Well considering that this stemmed from a response to my quoted reply, then I don't see how it would be odd that I would wonder whether you were referring to me or not. Especially considering that your arguments thus far have not made a lot of sense.
Actually your first reply to me in this thread stemmed from a response I had for someone else. And really, I'm not that concerned whether my arguments are "making sense" to you, regardless of how many times you reiterate so.0 -
To deaniac (since posts are now between this one and the one it was responding to and I neglected to quote):
As we've just discussed on this thread, cruciferous vegetables, especially in large quantities, frequently give people gastro-intestinal issues. Yet if I say "broccoli and cauliflower are great to eat and not bad for you at all!" you would likely not go into some twisted claim that I was implying that eating until your stomach hurt was a great idea, since I had not specifically limited my statement.
That's why context matters.
OP said she was within her calories. When people said "even added sugar isn't bad for you," they were responding to the implied claim that ANY such sugar (vs. the fruit) would be bad, not saying that limitless amounts or amounts exceeding calories or sugar at the expense of veggies and protein would be great choices. I mean, obviously. You have to assume that the people you are talking to aren't morons. To me making all the disclaimers you seem to want would come across as talking down to people. Everyone adult (and this generalization is intended, it probably applies to everyone over 8) knows that it's not good to eat limitless sweets or to eat sweets in lieu of other foods or in quantities such that you gain weight (assuming you are overweight). No one eats donuts 24/7 because they are confused about whether that's smart or healthy (and probably no one actually does at all).
Thus, this worry that someone might misunderstand was is being said seems to me to be completely faux and an excuse to go off on the dangers of sugar when the issue--as explained by the WHO--is excess, and what excess means is not any.0 -
Yes, that is exactly how it works. You cannot say "my side of the debate doesn't have to be specific but the other side does." If asserting sugar is bad requires defining parameters in which it is so - and I tend to agree that it does so require - asserting it isn't also requires defining parameters for which it isn't so. Otherwise, both are imprecise, inaccurate statements.DeguelloTex wrote: »
No. That's not how it works. Saying that sugar isn't bad doesn't lack precision or correctness. If you want to assert that sugar is bad, you need to define precisely and correctly the parameters in which it is so. If X amount of sugar is bad, it's the X amount, rather than something inherent in the sugar. What's the X amount, then, in your view?And the specific person I responded to first made a blanket statement that sugar is not bad (again, as opposed to a precise and correct statement that it isn't bad in all quantities.
No this is not how it works. Sugar isn't bad. By your logic, you'd have to say EVERYTHING is bad, because everything has an amount that is going to kill you.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 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
- 22 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions