Sugars
Options
Replies
-
ihatetodietalways wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »ihatetodietalways wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »ihatetodietalways wrote: »I really hope the OP got something out of this.
That she should worry because her sugar is over 24g based on two or so servings of fruit?
Sigh.
But based on that you know she can't maintain a deficit, overeats sugary sweets, should probably do a low carb diet, and likely has diabetes. Good for you.
I'm getting so tired of posts that assume everyone should act as if they have diabetes even when we know we do not and are not insulin resistant, and I am similarly tired of posts that assume everyone eats sugar immoderately or has some reason to cut it out or owes their weight issues to sugar. (And many of us aren't overweight anymore or are very successfully losing despite our approaches--various as they are--to sugar.)
Seems to me that maybe you are looking for a scapegoat and can't accept that people gain weight from eating too much, but too much of all kinds of different foods, depending on the person.
You are putting words in my mouth. Stop that. I did not say OP is diabetic. We should all be mindful. It is just a friendly warning.
There are lots of things to be mindful of. Forcing a tangent that is known to be contentious helps the op how?
I was hoping we would be having an intelligent discussion.
To paraphrase the joke about Giuliani, I get the sense that to you an "intelligent discussion" is "noun, verb, diabetes."0 -
Wait a minute. YOU just pointed out where it says sugar is bad. At the minimum, the WHO guideline, even according to you, indicates that sugars can be a risk factor, even if not the only factor promoting weight gain. If free sugars (as the WHO document refers to it) is one of the factors that can cause one to overeat (even if it isn't the sugar they are overeating), then moderating its intake is in fact beneficial to health and weight.stevencloser wrote: »http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/149782/1/9789241549028_eng.pdf?ua=1
Here's the entire document on sugar guidelines by the WHO, telling you how much sugar you should consume and why.
Could you read through it and show me the part where it says sugar is bad for your health?
That was a trick question, because it doesn't.
It can cause holes in your teeth if your dental hygiene isn't good enough and it can make you gain weight if it makes your total calorie intake too high.
That's it.
Sure, no one is against moderating. What I personally am against is claiming that someone is not moderating, absent evidence, and claiming that someone must cut it out (or almost out) to lose or to maintain/bulk in a healthy way.
Beyond that, the WHO is saying that in general, for people who don't track calories, there's a good chance that eating lots of added (free) sugar will result in overeating, since on average such sugar is attached to low nutrient high calorie items (although ironically in many cases the plurality of the calories are, in fact, from fat and only a minority are from sugar). If one tracks their overall diet and calories (and carbs and fiber, as everyone here has recommended), then that's unlikely to be an issue. It's NOT like sugar magically causes weight gain in a deficit and the WHO does not claim otherwise. If you are someone who finds that including even a little added sugar makes it impossible for you to keep to a deficit (which has to be a minority of people), then you can figure that out and act accordingly, but there are absolutely no signs that OP is such a person.0 -
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
0 -
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/0 -
ihatetodietalways wrote: »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.
Hi, sorry about all this. What I would recommend is to take one fruit out of your daily diet regimen. In my opinion, veggies are also a great source of carbs and have great nutrients. But, maybe you don't like veggies. Not sure what you mean by sugar being ignored in the counter?
If she eats two servings of fruit she must not be eating veggies?
And you do realize that the two servings of fruit (or even more) would be consistent with general recommendations, right? In fact the US Dietary Guidelines recommend that Americans on average eat more fruit.
Also, if she's at 24 g (which is an absurd limit for all sugar), it's super easy to hit with just veggies. I probably could hit it with veggies most days.0 -
ok so eric 7259 already deactivated…LOLZ0
-
professionalHobbyist wrote: »"lemonsnowdrop
I find it amusing and coincidental that most people who fear monger and claim added/processed sugars are evil are members who don't have profile pictures, have nothing on their profile and obviously haven't been here long. It's like they join just so they can spew crap like this.
Even our beloved MFP has articles stating that sugar calories added to foods, that have no nutritional value are not a good food choice.
The blog on the main page. That isn't fear mongering. The nutritional profile of a food is not debatable, it is kind of a fact.
Why so mean. There is no reason.
Do you hate me cuz I lost weight on a moderate carb diets? I'm not evil I promise!
On the way home from helping at the soup kitchen I saved a baby seal from bad teenagers forcing it to inhale second hand smoke. It was awful...
who is arguing that sugar is a primary source for nutrients?
the argument is:
its not satan reincarnate
its not addictive
and you can lose weight, eat sugar, and be healthy
0 -
professionalHobbyist wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »Authority nutrition...webmd....YouTube....blogs
We're getting some quality stuff here
If you have better info then bring it on.
The topic is excessive sugar added to food being good to avoid in a nutritional diet
Where is that even remotely like rocket science?
Every major hospital has a blog.
American cancer institute, AMA, on and on...
So they are discredited for having a blog? Come on man...
I have an open mind if you have something stating added sugar calories equal good nutritional value.
You can post the nutritional breakdown of a sugar molecule and then of any of the food options in the MFP Blog that is so bad.
Back up just one instance of a food they cite being inferior to table sugar. If it is such junk science and rubbish, it should be easy for you to run it down.
AMA
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/news/news/2012-06-20-ama-policy-addresses-obesity.page
Prostate Cancer? You want increased risk of that? Really?
http://www.pcf.org/atf/cf/{7c77d6a2-5859-4d60-af47-132fd0f85892}/NUTRITION-EXERCISE-AND-PROSTATE-CANCER.PDF
Heart risks
http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/NutritionCenter/HealthyEating/Added-Sugars-Add-to-Your-Risk-of-Dying-from-Heart-Disease_UCM_460319_Article.jsp#mainContent
red meat is also linked to prostate cancer, you going to stop eating steak?
0 -
A typical fruit & vegetable intake that doesn't include Bananas (15 to 16 grams) and Cantaloupe (43 grams in 552 gram slice).If you have a target of 244 you haven't rerun your goals for over a year.
At 1200 cals the sugar allowance is 48g ie 15% of calories. That's enough for a sensible sugar intake from typical fruit & veg intake.0 -
Oh anti-sugar crusaders? I once got a heaping whack of sugar on a day where I ate no fruit. No added refined sugar. I was over my MFP limits.
How did this happen. There was one single food in my diary that had the most grams of sugar. Guess what it was.
I think, in your zealotry to rail against sugar, you have failed to help the OP by bringing in such issues as refined sugars, excess consumption of said refined sugars, insulin resistance, and diabetes.
Well done derailing the thread.
She just wanted to know if she could eat fruit. You didn't even ask about her health status before you went off on a pet topic.
Nicely played.
Now guess the mystery, sugar-laden food item from my day.0 -
asflatasapancake wrote: »I had that very question when I started almost 1 1/2 years ago. 75lbs lighter, I don't worry about that macro too much. Katie Couric wants you to believe that sugar is the devil. Have you ever seen it go down to Georgia and play a fiddle? I think not. As a result, sugar is not the devil.
most logical "sugar is not the devil" reasoning i've ever seen on here. hats off to you, sir
0 -
And here I was all along thinking that the values for nutrients set by MFP were minimums...0
-
mamapeach910 wrote: »Oh anti-sugar crusaders? I once got a heaping whack of sugar on a day where I ate no fruit. No added refined sugar. I was over my MFP limits.
How did this happen. There was one single food in my diary that had the most grams of sugar. Guess what it was.
I think, in your zealotry to rail against sugar, you have failed to help the OP by bringing in such issues as refined sugars, excess consumption of said refined sugars, insulin resistance, and diabetes.
Well done derailing the thread.
She just wanted to know if she could eat fruit. You didn't even ask about her health status before you went off on a pet topic.
Nicely played.
Now guess the mystery, sugar-laden food item from my day.
Mamapeach please do tell!0 -
Scientific studies don't characterize things as "good" or "bad" because those words are value judgments, not facts. The point here is excess of sugar consumption isn't simply problematic because of the excess sugar itself, but also because it can cause one to consume excess of other foods, thus increasing overall calorie intake. Eating too many apples or too many oranges don't generally cause people to want to chow down on a pizza as well.stevencloser wrote: »
None of that says sugar is bad. Excess is bad. Like literally everything, if eaten in excess it can cause problems. Instead of sugar it could have said lemons and oranges. They're also bad for your teeth in excess and can have too much calories if you eat a bunch of them.
Wait a minute. YOU just pointed out where it says sugar is bad. At the minimum, the WHO guideline, even according to you, indicates that sugars can be a risk factor, even if not the only factor promoting weight gain. If free sugars (as the WHO document refers to it) is one of the factors that can cause one to overeat (even if it isn't the sugar they are overeating), then moderating its intake is in fact beneficial to health and weight.stevencloser wrote: »http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/149782/1/9789241549028_eng.pdf?ua=1
Here's the entire document on sugar guidelines by the WHO, telling you how much sugar you should consume and why.
Could you read through it and show me the part where it says sugar is bad for your health?
That was a trick question, because it doesn't.
It can cause holes in your teeth if your dental hygiene isn't good enough and it can make you gain weight if it makes your total calorie intake too high.
That's it.
The truth is, with respect to diets, different things work for different folk. If one is to follow CICO, then one has to acknowledge that there are different ways to reduce calorie intake, and if sugar is a factor that causes one to overeat (i.e. increase calorie intake), then reducing sugar intake may be their ticket to reducing calories-in, and thus weight loss.
That's the thing, sugar is painted as some sort of "culprit", the source of all our problems. Over and over again.
It's not.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »
There's a funny thing about cardiologists. You might not know this but they work on hearts, not nutrition. A cardiologist knows as much about nutrition as your average high school student.ceoverturf wrote: »lemonsnowdrop 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/
why don't you go ahead and link to a peer reviewed source, which authority nutrition is not.
I eat all kinds of sugar and I am a ten year cancer survivor, and every year at my physical my blood work comes back nearly perfect.
Did you ever think that cancer might be linked to obesity and obese people tend to consume more sugar because they are obese?
There are a thousand different factors that go into what causes cancer and trying to isolate one is idiotic.
There are hundreds of other sources. Look it up.
To tell people who are struggling with weight loss and having difficulty meeting calorie limits (and the vast majority fail at dieting whether they count calories or don't count calories) to just continue to eat and drink something that provides no satiety and is not healthy, is absurd. I'm not saying to give up refined sugar. I'm not saying to give up anything. Just cut way back.
Just because what you do works for you does not mean it works for most people.
One of my biggest pet peeves is when someone spouts debatable information and then expects someone to go find where they got that information from. It's not our responsibility to search for sources you should have at hand if you're willing to start a debate.
More than just a pet peeve...it's completely against how debating works...on the internet or otherwise.
You make the claim, you back it up.
For example: source for the above claim... http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/phil_of_religion_text/CHAPTER_5_ARGUMENTS_EXPERIENCE/Burden-of-Proof.htm
Here is one by a CARDIOLOGIST. I am not going to direct you to every video and web site that says refined sugar is bad for you. There are hundreds of them and they are easy to find.
On the other hand, you can not find a single credible video that says refined sugar is good for you and there is no need to cut back if you are trying to lose weight.
Burden of proof is on you, not me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDDLypjo5FI
dr oz comes to mind...
@Eric7259 would you let a cardiologist operate on your brain? I assume no, so why would you take nutrition advice from one?
preach.....when I had to see every doctor under the sun during the kidney donation process to give one to my dad, the nephrologist had a chocolate bar in hand every single time I saw him. Since he's a doctor and obviously advocates regular consumption of processed sugars, they must be good for you......but wait....if a cardiologist says they're bad and a nephrologist says they're good....who wins?0 -
Scientific studies don't characterize things as "good" or "bad" because those words are value judgments, not facts. The point here is excess of sugar consumption isn't simply because because of the excess sugar itself, but also because it can cause one to consume excess of other foods, thus increasing overall calorie intake. Eating too many apples or too many oranges don't generally cause people to want to chow down on a pizza as wellstevencloser wrote: »
None of that says sugar is bad. Excess is bad. Like literally everything, if eaten in excess it can cause problems. Instead of sugar it could have said lemons and oranges. They're also bad for your teeth in excess and can have too much calories if you eat a bunch of them.
Wait a minute. YOU just pointed out where it says sugar is bad. At the minimum, the WHO guideline, even according to you, indicates that sugars can be a risk factor, even if not the only factor promoting weight gain. If free sugars (as the WHO document refers to it) is one of the factors that can cause one to overeat (even if it isn't the sugar they are overeating), then moderating its intake is in fact beneficial to health and weight.stevencloser wrote: »http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/149782/1/9789241549028_eng.pdf?ua=1
Here's the entire document on sugar guidelines by the WHO, telling you how much sugar you should consume and why.
Could you read through it and show me the part where it says sugar is bad for your health?
That was a trick question, because it doesn't.
It can cause holes in your teeth if your dental hygiene isn't good enough and it can make you gain weight if it makes your total calorie intake too high.
That's it.
The truth is, with respect to diets, different things work for different folk. If one is to follow CICO, then one has to acknowledge that there are different ways to reduce calorie intake, and if sugar is a factor that causes one to overeat (i.e. increase calorie intake), then reducing sugar intake may be their ticket to reducing calories-in, and thus weight loss.
That's the thing, sugar is painted as some sort of "culprit", the source of all our problems. Over and over again.
It's not.
My go to foods to stimulate hunger when bulking are fruits0 -
The point here is excess of sugar consumption isn't simply because because of the excess sugar itself, but also because it can cause one to consume excess of other foods, thus increasing overall calorie intake. Eating too many apples or too many oranges don't generally cause people to want to chow down on a pizza as well.
Neither does eating some ice cream, IME, or putting some (gasp!) added sugar in a rhubarb sauce or eating some flavored yogurt.
And the WHO does not claim otherwise.0 -
I really wish someone would source a claim to the food babe. That's all I need for bingo0
-
It's funny. When I started losing weight, I tried cutting out sweets and snacks. I would crave some chocolate and instead go eat an orange...and guess what, the craving was still there. That was an eye opener for me. Now, I'll give up chocolate when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.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
- 1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions