Sugars
Options
Replies
-
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.
I see what is going on here ..this poster is never wrong and always misunderstood....
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »
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.
excess water will kill you too...I guess we should stop drinking water...see what I did there?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, they don't. They advise avoidance to HELP prevent diabetes. The way that helps, is by helping one maintain a healthy weight by not drinking too many calories as that is very easy to do. This isn't hard, you can keep focusing on that one sentence, minus the word "help" that undermines your point, but the rest of the recommendation clearly states that sugar does not cause diabetes.0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »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.
Seriously, every time I see these kinds of threads people get hung up over things that should be obvious.
Eating 5 pounds of sugar every day isn't going to be good for you. Does anyone have to tell you that when saying "sugar isn't bad for you" or else you'd think it's a-ok? Almost makes one think they're doing that on purpose.0 -
My dietitian steers me away from blended drinks, not because of the action of the blender or that the sugars are somehow transmogrified in to something less healthy. It's because those sneaky drinks can quickly add up to a lot more calories. Consider how long it takes to munch on a single apple. One apple, one serving, eaten at a decent rate. Now convert four apples in to a smoothie. Gulp. Done.
Absolutely! And one apple in a smoothie? Not for me.
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.
Did you read the part in Tex's reply where he said "Pretty much like people have written on every page of this thread." Because you just agreed with something that has been repeated on every page of this thread. The same statement that you've been arguing against this whole time. You either didn't read the replies thoroughly, you read what you wanted to read in the replies, or you just wanted to get on your soap box for some reason.0 -
mantium999 wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »fearnsey71 wrote: »You only need to worry about the processed sugars. Sugar from fruit & veg eaten in it's raw state is generally ok because it still contains fibre, which will take the body longer to convert into energy. It's when you blend the fruit (either into smoothies or into juice) that the sugar becomes an issue. The fibre is pretty much removed and the body processes the sugars much more quickly. Well this is what i was told when I went through my diabetes clinics (I'm type 2). I lost my first 14lb just cutting out as much process sugar as possible. When that left me plateauing I then started CICO and exercise and I've lost another 17lb and thats since the 10th of March this year.
you need to worry about processed sugars because you have a medical condition....
OP has not ID'd a medical condition so this is not necessary for her.
There are hundreds of articles on the internet and hundreds of videos on YouTube (many by MD's dieticians and nutritionists) explaining why the totally empty calories of refined sugar are bad for you. Try Sugar and Cancer, or Sugar and Type 2 diabetes, or Sugar and Obesity, etc.
And if your having trouble meeting your caloric goal (like most people), greatly reducing refined sugar and replacing it with fat should help you meet those goals.
Don't take it from me (not an MD, dietician or nutritionist). Do your own due diligence. And please don't listen to some random poster who implies that sugar is just wonderful.
One of hundreds - http://authoritynutrition.com/10-disturbing-reasons-why-sugar-is-bad/
I enjoy the fact that you use the internet and YouTube as validation, while telling someone to ignore a poster on the internet. Good stuff.
This poster is not an MD, Dietician or Nutritionist, correct?
are you?
Dr. Oz has an MD.
He has a........
MD.
I can't believe the stuff that guy promotes.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, they don't. They advise avoidance to HELP prevent diabetes. The way that helps, is by helping one maintain a healthy weight by not drinking too many calories as that is very easy to do. This isn't hard, you can keep focusing on that one sentence, minus the word "help" that undermines your point, but the rest of the recommendation clearly states that sugar does not cause diabetes.
Thank you.0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »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
It's true, I do look fabulous.
It should also be noted that I reversed my insulin resistance while drinking coke.
I went from 6-7 a day, to a few sips with dinner - though I will have a full one when I want one.
The first month I cut back my soda (and so cut out around 900 calories a day), I lost 20 pounds - but was still over my sugar goals 100% of the time.0 -
TheVirgoddess wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »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
It's true, I do look fabulous.
It should also be noted that I reversed my insulin resistance while drinking coke.
I went from 6-7 a day, to a few sips with dinner - though I will have a full one when I want one.
The first month I cut back my soda (and so cut out around 900 calories a day), I lost 20 pounds - but was still over my sugar goals 100% of the time.
0 -
TheVirgoddess wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »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
It's true, I do look fabulous.
It should also be noted that I reversed my insulin resistance while drinking coke.
I went from 6-7 a day, to a few sips with dinner - though I will have a full one when I want one.
The first month I cut back my soda (and so cut out around 900 calories a day), I lost 20 pounds - but was still over my sugar goals 100% of the time.
See, this is an amazing middle-ground action. Still having what you love, just in moderate amounts that work for you.
Thumbs up!0 -
mantium999 wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »fearnsey71 wrote: »You only need to worry about the processed sugars. Sugar from fruit & veg eaten in it's raw state is generally ok because it still contains fibre, which will take the body longer to convert into energy. It's when you blend the fruit (either into smoothies or into juice) that the sugar becomes an issue. The fibre is pretty much removed and the body processes the sugars much more quickly. Well this is what i was told when I went through my diabetes clinics (I'm type 2). I lost my first 14lb just cutting out as much process sugar as possible. When that left me plateauing I then started CICO and exercise and I've lost another 17lb and thats since the 10th of March this year.
you need to worry about processed sugars because you have a medical condition....
OP has not ID'd a medical condition so this is not necessary for her.
There are hundreds of articles on the internet and hundreds of videos on YouTube (many by MD's dieticians and nutritionists) explaining why the totally empty calories of refined sugar are bad for you. Try Sugar and Cancer, or Sugar and Type 2 diabetes, or Sugar and Obesity, etc.
And if your having trouble meeting your caloric goal (like most people), greatly reducing refined sugar and replacing it with fat should help you meet those goals.
Don't take it from me (not an MD, dietician or nutritionist). Do your own due diligence. And please don't listen to some random poster who implies that sugar is just wonderful.
One of hundreds - http://authoritynutrition.com/10-disturbing-reasons-why-sugar-is-bad/
I enjoy the fact that you use the internet and YouTube as validation, while telling someone to ignore a poster on the internet. Good stuff.
This poster is not an MD, Dietician or Nutritionist, correct?
are you?
Dr. Oz has an MD.
He has a........
MD.
I can't believe the stuff that guy promotes.
lol it's k
http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/17/health/senate-grills-dr-oz/0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »
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.
Did you read the part in Tex's reply where he said "Pretty much like people have written on every page of this thread." Because you just agreed with something that has been repeated on every page of this thread. The same statement that you've been arguing against this whole time. You either didn't read the replies thoroughly, you read what you wanted to read in the replies, or you just wanted to get on your soap box for some reason.
Umm, actually, I always agreed with that statement. But I replied to specific statements with specific comments. It seems you are under the impression that I think all added sugars in all quantities is bad. That isn't true, and I have painstakingly said so again and again. In fact, one of my problems here is that I am being bashed even though I am agreeing with a lot of what is said, simply because I mentioned that sugar can have a negative context (quantity and duration). So no, I don't think I'm the one not reading or that I'm the one demanding a soapbox...0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »
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.
Did you read the part in Tex's reply where he said "Pretty much like people have written on every page of this thread." Because you just agreed with something that has been repeated on every page of this thread. The same statement that you've been arguing against this whole time. You either didn't read the replies thoroughly, you read what you wanted to read in the replies, or you just wanted to get on your soap box for some reason.
Umm, actually, I always agreed with that statement. But I replied to specific statements with specific comments. It seems you are under the impression that I think all added sugars in all quantities is bad. That isn't true, and I have painstakingly said so again and again. In fact, one of my problems here is that I am being bashed even though I am agreeing with a lot of what is said, simply because I mentioned that sugar can have a negative context (quantity and duration). So no, I don't think I'm the one not reading or that I'm the one demanding a soapbox...
Sounds like we're all saying basically the same thing, just coming at it from different directions.
Maybe we just all need to
0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »
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.
Did you read the part in Tex's reply where he said "Pretty much like people have written on every page of this thread." Because you just agreed with something that has been repeated on every page of this thread. The same statement that you've been arguing against this whole time. You either didn't read the replies thoroughly, you read what you wanted to read in the replies, or you just wanted to get on your soap box for some reason.
Umm, actually, I always agreed with that statement. But I replied to specific statements with specific comments. It seems you are under the impression that I think all added sugars in all quantities is bad. That isn't true, and I have painstakingly said so again and again. In fact, one of my problems here is that I am being bashed even though I am agreeing with a lot of what is said, simply because I mentioned that sugar can have a negative context (quantity and duration). So no, I don't think I'm the one not reading or that I'm the one demanding a soapbox...
No, you've argued several times in this thread that sugar causes diabetes.
In the last several posts, you've been backpedaling.0 -
ceoverturf wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »
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.
Did you read the part in Tex's reply where he said "Pretty much like people have written on every page of this thread." Because you just agreed with something that has been repeated on every page of this thread. The same statement that you've been arguing against this whole time. You either didn't read the replies thoroughly, you read what you wanted to read in the replies, or you just wanted to get on your soap box for some reason.
Umm, actually, I always agreed with that statement. But I replied to specific statements with specific comments. It seems you are under the impression that I think all added sugars in all quantities is bad. That isn't true, and I have painstakingly said so again and again. In fact, one of my problems here is that I am being bashed even though I am agreeing with a lot of what is said, simply because I mentioned that sugar can have a negative context (quantity and duration). So no, I don't think I'm the one not reading or that I'm the one demanding a soapbox...
Sounds like we're all saying basically the same thing, just coming at it from different directions.
Maybe we just all need to
But it's more fun to argue!0 -
ceoverturf wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »
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.
Did you read the part in Tex's reply where he said "Pretty much like people have written on every page of this thread." Because you just agreed with something that has been repeated on every page of this thread. The same statement that you've been arguing against this whole time. You either didn't read the replies thoroughly, you read what you wanted to read in the replies, or you just wanted to get on your soap box for some reason.
Umm, actually, I always agreed with that statement. But I replied to specific statements with specific comments. It seems you are under the impression that I think all added sugars in all quantities is bad. That isn't true, and I have painstakingly said so again and again. In fact, one of my problems here is that I am being bashed even though I am agreeing with a lot of what is said, simply because I mentioned that sugar can have a negative context (quantity and duration). So no, I don't think I'm the one not reading or that I'm the one demanding a soapbox...
Sounds like we're all saying basically the same thing, just coming at it from different directions.
Maybe we just all need to
Hand-holding in excess can lead to bird flu. Therefore, I avoid hand-holding altogether.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »
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.
Except that I never said anything about anything being "bad" as a blanket statement. You claimed, in a blanket statement, that it isn't bad (even just now). Blanket statements are bad for debate and need parameters. Saying that "sugar isn't bad" is an inaccurate and imprecise statement does not mean one is saying that "sugar IS bad." This isn't either or.0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »
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.
Did you read the part in Tex's reply where he said "Pretty much like people have written on every page of this thread." Because you just agreed with something that has been repeated on every page of this thread. The same statement that you've been arguing against this whole time. You either didn't read the replies thoroughly, you read what you wanted to read in the replies, or you just wanted to get on your soap box for some reason.
Umm, actually, I always agreed with that statement. But I replied to specific statements with specific comments. It seems you are under the impression that I think all added sugars in all quantities is bad. That isn't true, and I have painstakingly said so again and again. In fact, one of my problems here is that I am being bashed even though I am agreeing with a lot of what is said, simply because I mentioned that sugar can have a negative context (quantity and duration). So no, I don't think I'm the one not reading or that I'm the one demanding a soapbox...
No, you've argued several times in this thread that sugar causes diabetes.
Really? Then PLEASE quote me. I have said multiple times that added sugars (and I have usually been precise to say in high quantities in long term use) consumption is a risk factor of diabetes, not that it causes it. Go ahead, find where I said it causes diabetes rather than that it's a risk factor.0 -
Oh, ffs.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 983 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions