Say no to sugar
Replies
-
I find so much of this thread to be frustrating and just silly.
One, I am frustrated by the OP making claims that sugar is bad and should be avoided and that we should too. And then she comes back and gets upset that people don't like the demonization of sugar. I am frustrated that she is in the health field. I am frustrated that her doctor told her to reduce sugar based on the misinformation that it is linked to diabetes. I am glad it is working for her and she is feeling better, but I am still annoyed at the bad science that is pervasive.
I also think it is silly that there is even an argument about it. I am someone who does low carb and was also one of the people on the first page flagged for having a dissenting opinion that sugar is BAD. You know why? Because sugar isn't bad. Sugar isn't a killer. Sugar isn't crack cocaine. Sugar isn't silently killing all our children.
The thing that works...100% of the time is CICO. Eating at a deficit causes weight loss. I do a lower carb program not because I have to GET RID OF THEM DEBBIL SUGARS, but because it is the easiest way for ME to reduce my deficit. It's as simple as that. I feel more satisfied and fuller longer on a lower carb/high protein/moderate fat diet.
I also am at a higher risk of diabetes, but luckily have never been prediabetic. Almost everyone in my family has it or had it. They are also overweight. So I am making strides to lessen my risk of diabetes, not by reducing my sugars, but by reducing my weight.
There are so many reasons this thread is annoying. Putting David Tennant in here could help improve it.
0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
As can, for about the eleventy billionth time, moderating the intake of protein, fat, and alcohol. It's not either/or and there isn't one culprit.
So we agree, it's not the sugar...
Only if you eat at a surplus and gain weight. That said, weight gain can be achieved via any macro in surplus...Correct, but the NHS also indirectly links sugar consumption with diabetes, saying that added sugars can translate to weight gain, which can then lead to diabetes. (link)
I don't think I disputed that. But as I have said now in multiple posts, because of the concentration of sugars and thus calories (as well as the propensity to create cravings in the case of many), eating sugary foods and drinks make the calories add up faster by volume than many other foods.
Is overconsumption of free sugars, specifically free-sugar concentrated foods and drinks, "the sugar"? You can decide. I don't even think it matters. What does matter is moderating the intake of these foods can be effective in weight loss, and thus reducing the risk of metabolic disease.
And for the eleventy billionth time, I don't disagree with that. I am merely stating, for again what seems to be the eleventy billionth time, that it is easier to cut the calories by cutting the sugary foods and drinks than cutting many other things.
For you, maybe. What we are saying is: No, it is not easier for everyone to cut the calories by cutting the sugary foods and drinks. You are painting everyone with the same paintbrush.
Re: the bolded part an honest question: why is this? Is it because someone may find free sugars too difficult to cut and other things (like red, fatty meats) easier because of their habits? Is it because someone may not be eating that much free sugars to begin with and could have weight problems due to other factors? I meant easier in the sense that cutting out the same volume reduces more calories compared to many other foods. If you are talking about habits and attachments, then you do have a point. I'm also talking about a generality - of course nothing applies to "everyone", except that we all got a mother and that we're all going to die someday.
The same volume of a fatty food contains more calories per gram than a sugary food. Alcohol contains more calories per gram than carbs. If we are simply suggesting efficiency of calorie reduction, should these 2 not be on the top of the list?
Alcohol certainly. Fats too, yes. But with respect to fat, since everyone is talking about their own individual experience, let me offer mine: I find it a lot harder to eat the same volume of pure fat (say pure butter or cooked animal fat chunk) than to eat that volume of a sugary treat.
Again - You are projecting your issues with sugar onto everyone else. This is what the food-group-demonizers tend to do on here on a regular basis.
Maybe you couldn't eat a whole bunch of fatty foods, but I sure as hell can.
I specifically stated "since everyone is talking about their own individual experience, let me offer mine". That is the opposite of projecting onto anyone (let alone everyone) else; it's as specific as it gets.
Again speaking for myself and not some group I don't even know I'm a part of, I couldn't demonize sugar if I wanted to. I am famous for loving sweet stuff among people who know me - both in its whole and added forms. I do understand your observation about "food-group-demonizers", but I see concern-demonizing (belittling anyone who displays or talks about concerns about a particular food group) happening a lot more. But that's just my observation.
Because you and many others are concerned about the wrong things. You have to look at the big picture. And you have to understand that just because you personally have issues with certain foods (sugar, gluten, peanuts, dairy, whatever) does not mean that any of those foods are bad for everyone. By all means, eat the diet that you will stick to, but don't decide that you can't eat sweets without binging on them and then go onto health/fitness forums preaching to everyone about the "dangers" of sweets. It doesn't work that way.
Wait, I can't tell you what the right thing for you to be concerned about is, but you can tell me what the wrong thing for me to be concerned about is? That doesn't sound right.
I'm saying that people are wrong to be concerned about one food group when they should be concerned about overall caloric intake.
Concerned for themselves or concerned for everyone else? If it is just themselves, why would you get to make that decision any more than they would get to make it for you?0 -
0
-
-
Not as much as Matt Smith, but it's still an improvement.mamapeach910 wrote: »I find so much of this thread to be frustrating and just silly.
One, I am frustrated by the OP making claims that sugar is bad and should be avoided and that we should too. And then she comes back and gets upset that people don't like the demonization of sugar. I am frustrated that she is in the health field. I am frustrated that her doctor told her to reduce sugar based on the misinformation that it is linked to diabetes. I am glad it is working for her and she is feeling better, but I am still annoyed at the bad science that is pervasive.
I also think it is silly that there is even an argument about it. I am someone who does low carb and was also one of the people on the first page flagged for having a dissenting opinion that sugar is BAD. You know why? Because sugar isn't bad. Sugar isn't a killer. Sugar isn't crack cocaine. Sugar isn't silently killing all our children.
The thing that works...100% of the time is CICO. Eating at a deficit causes weight loss. I do a lower carb program not because I have to GET RID OF THEM DEBBIL SUGARS, but because it is the easiest way for ME to reduce my deficit. It's as simple as that. I feel more satisfied and fuller longer on a lower carb/high protein/moderate fat diet.
I also am at a higher risk of diabetes, but luckily have never been prediabetic. Almost everyone in my family has it or had it. They are also overweight. So I am making strides to lessen my risk of diabetes, not by reducing my sugars, but by reducing my weight.
There are so many reasons this thread is annoying. Putting David Tennant in here could help improve it.
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Sure it does. The wrong thing is overly focusing on a particular type of food which isn't a problem for everyone. The right thing is for each person to determine what cuts work best for them. Maybe that actually is sugar. Maybe it's not.Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
As can, for about the eleventy billionth time, moderating the intake of protein, fat, and alcohol. It's not either/or and there isn't one culprit.
So we agree, it's not the sugar...
Only if you eat at a surplus and gain weight. That said, weight gain can be achieved via any macro in surplus...Correct, but the NHS also indirectly links sugar consumption with diabetes, saying that added sugars can translate to weight gain, which can then lead to diabetes. (link)
I don't think I disputed that. But as I have said now in multiple posts, because of the concentration of sugars and thus calories (as well as the propensity to create cravings in the case of many), eating sugary foods and drinks make the calories add up faster by volume than many other foods.
Is overconsumption of free sugars, specifically free-sugar concentrated foods and drinks, "the sugar"? You can decide. I don't even think it matters. What does matter is moderating the intake of these foods can be effective in weight loss, and thus reducing the risk of metabolic disease.
And for the eleventy billionth time, I don't disagree with that. I am merely stating, for again what seems to be the eleventy billionth time, that it is easier to cut the calories by cutting the sugary foods and drinks than cutting many other things.
For you, maybe. What we are saying is: No, it is not easier for everyone to cut the calories by cutting the sugary foods and drinks. You are painting everyone with the same paintbrush.
Re: the bolded part an honest question: why is this? Is it because someone may find free sugars too difficult to cut and other things (like red, fatty meats) easier because of their habits? Is it because someone may not be eating that much free sugars to begin with and could have weight problems due to other factors? I meant easier in the sense that cutting out the same volume reduces more calories compared to many other foods. If you are talking about habits and attachments, then you do have a point. I'm also talking about a generality - of course nothing applies to "everyone", except that we all got a mother and that we're all going to die someday.
The same volume of a fatty food contains more calories per gram than a sugary food. Alcohol contains more calories per gram than carbs. If we are simply suggesting efficiency of calorie reduction, should these 2 not be on the top of the list?
Alcohol certainly. Fats too, yes. But with respect to fat, since everyone is talking about their own individual experience, let me offer mine: I find it a lot harder to eat the same volume of pure fat (say pure butter or cooked animal fat chunk) than to eat that volume of a sugary treat.
Again - You are projecting your issues with sugar onto everyone else. This is what the food-group-demonizers tend to do on here on a regular basis.
Maybe you couldn't eat a whole bunch of fatty foods, but I sure as hell can.
I specifically stated "since everyone is talking about their own individual experience, let me offer mine". That is the opposite of projecting onto anyone (let alone everyone) else; it's as specific as it gets.
Again speaking for myself and not some group I don't even know I'm a part of, I couldn't demonize sugar if I wanted to. I am famous for loving sweet stuff among people who know me - both in its whole and added forms. I do understand your observation about "food-group-demonizers", but I see concern-demonizing (belittling anyone who displays or talks about concerns about a particular food group) happening a lot more. But that's just my observation.
Because you and many others are concerned about the wrong things. You have to look at the big picture. And you have to understand that just because you personally have issues with certain foods (sugar, gluten, peanuts, dairy, whatever) does not mean that any of those foods are bad for everyone. By all means, eat the diet that you will stick to, but don't decide that you can't eat sweets without binging on them and then go onto health/fitness forums preaching to everyone about the "dangers" of sweets. It doesn't work that way.
Wait, I can't tell you what the right thing for you to be concerned about is, but you can tell me what the wrong thing for me to be concerned about is? That doesn't sound right.
Hmm, and when a given individual does decide that for them it is sugar, and they post that here, there is no reason to jump on them right?0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
As can, for about the eleventy billionth time, moderating the intake of protein, fat, and alcohol. It's not either/or and there isn't one culprit.
So we agree, it's not the sugar...
Only if you eat at a surplus and gain weight. That said, weight gain can be achieved via any macro in surplus...Correct, but the NHS also indirectly links sugar consumption with diabetes, saying that added sugars can translate to weight gain, which can then lead to diabetes. (link)
I don't think I disputed that. But as I have said now in multiple posts, because of the concentration of sugars and thus calories (as well as the propensity to create cravings in the case of many), eating sugary foods and drinks make the calories add up faster by volume than many other foods.
Is overconsumption of free sugars, specifically free-sugar concentrated foods and drinks, "the sugar"? You can decide. I don't even think it matters. What does matter is moderating the intake of these foods can be effective in weight loss, and thus reducing the risk of metabolic disease.
And for the eleventy billionth time, I don't disagree with that. I am merely stating, for again what seems to be the eleventy billionth time, that it is easier to cut the calories by cutting the sugary foods and drinks than cutting many other things.
For you, maybe. What we are saying is: No, it is not easier for everyone to cut the calories by cutting the sugary foods and drinks. You are painting everyone with the same paintbrush.
Re: the bolded part an honest question: why is this? Is it because someone may find free sugars too difficult to cut and other things (like red, fatty meats) easier because of their habits? Is it because someone may not be eating that much free sugars to begin with and could have weight problems due to other factors? I meant easier in the sense that cutting out the same volume reduces more calories compared to many other foods. If you are talking about habits and attachments, then you do have a point. I'm also talking about a generality - of course nothing applies to "everyone", except that we all got a mother and that we're all going to die someday.
The same volume of a fatty food contains more calories per gram than a sugary food. Alcohol contains more calories per gram than carbs. If we are simply suggesting efficiency of calorie reduction, should these 2 not be on the top of the list?
Alcohol certainly. Fats too, yes. But with respect to fat, since everyone is talking about their own individual experience, let me offer mine: I find it a lot harder to eat the same volume of pure fat (say pure butter or cooked animal fat chunk) than to eat that volume of a sugary treat.
Again - You are projecting your issues with sugar onto everyone else. This is what the food-group-demonizers tend to do on here on a regular basis.
Maybe you couldn't eat a whole bunch of fatty foods, but I sure as hell can.
I specifically stated "since everyone is talking about their own individual experience, let me offer mine". That is the opposite of projecting onto anyone (let alone everyone) else; it's as specific as it gets.
Again speaking for myself and not some group I don't even know I'm a part of, I couldn't demonize sugar if I wanted to. I am famous for loving sweet stuff among people who know me - both in its whole and added forms. I do understand your observation about "food-group-demonizers", but I see concern-demonizing (belittling anyone who displays or talks about concerns about a particular food group) happening a lot more. But that's just my observation.
Because you and many others are concerned about the wrong things. You have to look at the big picture. And you have to understand that just because you personally have issues with certain foods (sugar, gluten, peanuts, dairy, whatever) does not mean that any of those foods are bad for everyone. By all means, eat the diet that you will stick to, but don't decide that you can't eat sweets without binging on them and then go onto health/fitness forums preaching to everyone about the "dangers" of sweets. It doesn't work that way.
Wait, I can't tell you what the right thing for you to be concerned about is, but you can tell me what the wrong thing for me to be concerned about is? That doesn't sound right.
I'm saying that people are wrong to be concerned about one food group when they should be concerned about overall caloric intake.
Concerned for themselves or concerned for everyone else? If it is just themselves, why would you get to make that decision any more than they would get to make it for you?
It's fine to be concerned for yourself. Your concern spread into these forums, where you projected your "concern" all over everyone else.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
As can, for about the eleventy billionth time, moderating the intake of protein, fat, and alcohol. It's not either/or and there isn't one culprit.
So we agree, it's not the sugar...
Only if you eat at a surplus and gain weight. That said, weight gain can be achieved via any macro in surplus...Correct, but the NHS also indirectly links sugar consumption with diabetes, saying that added sugars can translate to weight gain, which can then lead to diabetes. (link)
I don't think I disputed that. But as I have said now in multiple posts, because of the concentration of sugars and thus calories (as well as the propensity to create cravings in the case of many), eating sugary foods and drinks make the calories add up faster by volume than many other foods.
Is overconsumption of free sugars, specifically free-sugar concentrated foods and drinks, "the sugar"? You can decide. I don't even think it matters. What does matter is moderating the intake of these foods can be effective in weight loss, and thus reducing the risk of metabolic disease.
And for the eleventy billionth time, I don't disagree with that. I am merely stating, for again what seems to be the eleventy billionth time, that it is easier to cut the calories by cutting the sugary foods and drinks than cutting many other things.
Not always. Often not, in fact.
I never drank sugary drinks, so that wouldn't have helped at all.
I could have cut down on dessert-type items (did, in fact) and suspect everyone knows that's an easy way to cut down on calories, but cutting them out entirely would have saved a relatively few calories vs. some other changes while making a significant difference in how much I enjoy my diet. Reducing serving size of starchy carbs, ordering Indian food less, not always getting an appetizer/salad when going out to eat and being careful to eat only a reasonable serving, and being much more sparing in the amount of olive oil/butter I use have all made much greater differences.
I think it's ridiculous that for some everything must come down to sugar.
I find it quite easy to eat sugar in moderation and I'm healthy and in shape (quite active, in fact, which I think it often a greater positive change that people can make than fretting about cutting out ALL added sugar and lecturing others on how they also should do that).0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Sure it does. The wrong thing is overly focusing on a particular type of food which isn't a problem for everyone. The right thing is for each person to determine what cuts work best for them. Maybe that actually is sugar. Maybe it's not.Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
As can, for about the eleventy billionth time, moderating the intake of protein, fat, and alcohol. It's not either/or and there isn't one culprit.
So we agree, it's not the sugar...
Only if you eat at a surplus and gain weight. That said, weight gain can be achieved via any macro in surplus...Correct, but the NHS also indirectly links sugar consumption with diabetes, saying that added sugars can translate to weight gain, which can then lead to diabetes. (link)
I don't think I disputed that. But as I have said now in multiple posts, because of the concentration of sugars and thus calories (as well as the propensity to create cravings in the case of many), eating sugary foods and drinks make the calories add up faster by volume than many other foods.
Is overconsumption of free sugars, specifically free-sugar concentrated foods and drinks, "the sugar"? You can decide. I don't even think it matters. What does matter is moderating the intake of these foods can be effective in weight loss, and thus reducing the risk of metabolic disease.
And for the eleventy billionth time, I don't disagree with that. I am merely stating, for again what seems to be the eleventy billionth time, that it is easier to cut the calories by cutting the sugary foods and drinks than cutting many other things.
For you, maybe. What we are saying is: No, it is not easier for everyone to cut the calories by cutting the sugary foods and drinks. You are painting everyone with the same paintbrush.
Re: the bolded part an honest question: why is this? Is it because someone may find free sugars too difficult to cut and other things (like red, fatty meats) easier because of their habits? Is it because someone may not be eating that much free sugars to begin with and could have weight problems due to other factors? I meant easier in the sense that cutting out the same volume reduces more calories compared to many other foods. If you are talking about habits and attachments, then you do have a point. I'm also talking about a generality - of course nothing applies to "everyone", except that we all got a mother and that we're all going to die someday.
The same volume of a fatty food contains more calories per gram than a sugary food. Alcohol contains more calories per gram than carbs. If we are simply suggesting efficiency of calorie reduction, should these 2 not be on the top of the list?
Alcohol certainly. Fats too, yes. But with respect to fat, since everyone is talking about their own individual experience, let me offer mine: I find it a lot harder to eat the same volume of pure fat (say pure butter or cooked animal fat chunk) than to eat that volume of a sugary treat.
Again - You are projecting your issues with sugar onto everyone else. This is what the food-group-demonizers tend to do on here on a regular basis.
Maybe you couldn't eat a whole bunch of fatty foods, but I sure as hell can.
I specifically stated "since everyone is talking about their own individual experience, let me offer mine". That is the opposite of projecting onto anyone (let alone everyone) else; it's as specific as it gets.
Again speaking for myself and not some group I don't even know I'm a part of, I couldn't demonize sugar if I wanted to. I am famous for loving sweet stuff among people who know me - both in its whole and added forms. I do understand your observation about "food-group-demonizers", but I see concern-demonizing (belittling anyone who displays or talks about concerns about a particular food group) happening a lot more. But that's just my observation.
Because you and many others are concerned about the wrong things. You have to look at the big picture. And you have to understand that just because you personally have issues with certain foods (sugar, gluten, peanuts, dairy, whatever) does not mean that any of those foods are bad for everyone. By all means, eat the diet that you will stick to, but don't decide that you can't eat sweets without binging on them and then go onto health/fitness forums preaching to everyone about the "dangers" of sweets. It doesn't work that way.
Wait, I can't tell you what the right thing for you to be concerned about is, but you can tell me what the wrong thing for me to be concerned about is? That doesn't sound right.
Hmm, and when a given individual does decide that for them it is sugar, and they post that here, there is no reason to jump on them right?
You remember how in the other thread, you started backpedaling? You're doing that now. Because it didn't start out with you only being concerned for yourself. It started with you saying that added sugar is to blame for all sorts of things.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Oh Zod, fried chicken with mashed potatoes and gravy along with homemade yeast rolls. Sugar never had a chance.mamapeach910 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
When I was drinking 1200+ calories of milk a day, it wasn't just the sugar that was making me fat. I couldn't give up enough sugar to offset that much because there wasn't enough sugar in my diet to do so.Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »
So we agree, it's not the sugar...
Only if you eat at a surplus and gain weight. That said, weight gain can be achieved via any macro in surplus...Correct, but the NHS also indirectly links sugar consumption with diabetes, saying that added sugars can translate to weight gain, which can then lead to diabetes. (link)
I don't think I disputed that. But as I have said now in multiple posts, because of the concentration of sugars and thus calories (as well as the propensity to create cravings in the case of many), eating sugary foods and drinks make the calories add up faster by volume than many other foods.
Is overconsumption of free sugars, specifically free-sugar concentrated foods and drinks, "the sugar"? You can decide. I don't even think it matters. What does matter is moderating the intake of these foods can be effective in weight loss, and thus reducing the risk of metabolic disease.
We weren't big dessert eaters growing up. Yes, I maybe had one Little Debbie or whatever every couple of days. But my mom could cook. We had a garden, so fresh veggies were always in supply (and lots of canned veggies in the winter). My dad was (and still is) a master griller. Mashed potatoes, fried okra, squash casserole, fried pork chops, fried green tomatoes, cornbread, broccoli and cheese, chili, spaghetti, slaw, turnip greens - all of those foods were staples in my diet. Not really a lot of "free sugars."
I got fat off of overeating all those foods. Not free sugars.
Stop demonizing one food group and admit that yes, it's overall calorie consumption that matters. Not just sugars. Sugar is just the new thing to blame, just like fat was to blame in the 80s.
I've had my moments with sugar, but I've had for more moments with things like cheese, egg salad, hummus, nuts (and nut butters), veggies drowning in butter, boneless fried chicken, freshly made meatballs, my slow roasted chicken, pulled pork... I never had off switches with those things.
Funny so many of those are meat and I'm a vegetarian now!
I am not a vegetarian.
Oh, ANYTHING with gravy. Totally done in for.
My biggest problem is that I ended up being a pretty good cook and baker who loves to do both.
Getting diagnosed with celiac disease took care of eating the baked goods, but I still ate and ate everything I cooked.
0 -
obiese person may be eating 10-20.
Not me.
I got fat because I was disgustingly inactive and ate lots of savory food ("healthy" stuff even, for the most part). I also didn't eat fast food or TV dinners, to address some of the other annoying stereotypes.
And I wasn't insulin resistant either.0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Sure it does. The wrong thing is overly focusing on a particular type of food which isn't a problem for everyone. The right thing is for each person to determine what cuts work best for them. Maybe that actually is sugar. Maybe it's not.Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
As can, for about the eleventy billionth time, moderating the intake of protein, fat, and alcohol. It's not either/or and there isn't one culprit.
So we agree, it's not the sugar...
Only if you eat at a surplus and gain weight. That said, weight gain can be achieved via any macro in surplus...Correct, but the NHS also indirectly links sugar consumption with diabetes, saying that added sugars can translate to weight gain, which can then lead to diabetes. (link)
I don't think I disputed that. But as I have said now in multiple posts, because of the concentration of sugars and thus calories (as well as the propensity to create cravings in the case of many), eating sugary foods and drinks make the calories add up faster by volume than many other foods.
Is overconsumption of free sugars, specifically free-sugar concentrated foods and drinks, "the sugar"? You can decide. I don't even think it matters. What does matter is moderating the intake of these foods can be effective in weight loss, and thus reducing the risk of metabolic disease.
And for the eleventy billionth time, I don't disagree with that. I am merely stating, for again what seems to be the eleventy billionth time, that it is easier to cut the calories by cutting the sugary foods and drinks than cutting many other things.
For you, maybe. What we are saying is: No, it is not easier for everyone to cut the calories by cutting the sugary foods and drinks. You are painting everyone with the same paintbrush.
Re: the bolded part an honest question: why is this? Is it because someone may find free sugars too difficult to cut and other things (like red, fatty meats) easier because of their habits? Is it because someone may not be eating that much free sugars to begin with and could have weight problems due to other factors? I meant easier in the sense that cutting out the same volume reduces more calories compared to many other foods. If you are talking about habits and attachments, then you do have a point. I'm also talking about a generality - of course nothing applies to "everyone", except that we all got a mother and that we're all going to die someday.
The same volume of a fatty food contains more calories per gram than a sugary food. Alcohol contains more calories per gram than carbs. If we are simply suggesting efficiency of calorie reduction, should these 2 not be on the top of the list?
Alcohol certainly. Fats too, yes. But with respect to fat, since everyone is talking about their own individual experience, let me offer mine: I find it a lot harder to eat the same volume of pure fat (say pure butter or cooked animal fat chunk) than to eat that volume of a sugary treat.
Again - You are projecting your issues with sugar onto everyone else. This is what the food-group-demonizers tend to do on here on a regular basis.
Maybe you couldn't eat a whole bunch of fatty foods, but I sure as hell can.
I specifically stated "since everyone is talking about their own individual experience, let me offer mine". That is the opposite of projecting onto anyone (let alone everyone) else; it's as specific as it gets.
Again speaking for myself and not some group I don't even know I'm a part of, I couldn't demonize sugar if I wanted to. I am famous for loving sweet stuff among people who know me - both in its whole and added forms. I do understand your observation about "food-group-demonizers", but I see concern-demonizing (belittling anyone who displays or talks about concerns about a particular food group) happening a lot more. But that's just my observation.
Because you and many others are concerned about the wrong things. You have to look at the big picture. And you have to understand that just because you personally have issues with certain foods (sugar, gluten, peanuts, dairy, whatever) does not mean that any of those foods are bad for everyone. By all means, eat the diet that you will stick to, but don't decide that you can't eat sweets without binging on them and then go onto health/fitness forums preaching to everyone about the "dangers" of sweets. It doesn't work that way.
Wait, I can't tell you what the right thing for you to be concerned about is, but you can tell me what the wrong thing for me to be concerned about is? That doesn't sound right.
Hmm, and when a given individual does decide that for them it is sugar, and they post that here, there is no reason to jump on them right?
You remember how in the other thread, you started backpedaling? You're doing that now. Because it didn't start out with you only being concerned for yourself. It started with you saying that added sugar is to blame for all sorts of things.
Maybe a moderator can answer this - is dragging other threads - especially a closed one - into a new one fine with the rules? Because if it is, I am happy to respond to this accusation. If not, it would be against forum rules. I am going to send an email to the mods and ask.0 -
If the individual posts about his success with cutting sugar -- or whatever -- without attempting to put said path forth as a template all must follow, then I certainly wouldn't jump on him and see no reason why anyone else should, either. That said, there are plenty of people who have made such posts and been congratulated on finding what works for them. It's the "and you should, too" and "we can do it" posts that tend to bring out the jumping. That further said, clarifying that the success was due to the caloric deficit, which may have been easier for that person by cutting the items in question, not cutting those items in question isn't jumping on them.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Sure it does. The wrong thing is overly focusing on a particular type of food which isn't a problem for everyone. The right thing is for each person to determine what cuts work best for them. Maybe that actually is sugar. Maybe it's not.Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
As can, for about the eleventy billionth time, moderating the intake of protein, fat, and alcohol. It's not either/or and there isn't one culprit.
So we agree, it's not the sugar...
Only if you eat at a surplus and gain weight. That said, weight gain can be achieved via any macro in surplus...Correct, but the NHS also indirectly links sugar consumption with diabetes, saying that added sugars can translate to weight gain, which can then lead to diabetes. (link)
I don't think I disputed that. But as I have said now in multiple posts, because of the concentration of sugars and thus calories (as well as the propensity to create cravings in the case of many), eating sugary foods and drinks make the calories add up faster by volume than many other foods.
Is overconsumption of free sugars, specifically free-sugar concentrated foods and drinks, "the sugar"? You can decide. I don't even think it matters. What does matter is moderating the intake of these foods can be effective in weight loss, and thus reducing the risk of metabolic disease.
And for the eleventy billionth time, I don't disagree with that. I am merely stating, for again what seems to be the eleventy billionth time, that it is easier to cut the calories by cutting the sugary foods and drinks than cutting many other things.
For you, maybe. What we are saying is: No, it is not easier for everyone to cut the calories by cutting the sugary foods and drinks. You are painting everyone with the same paintbrush.
Re: the bolded part an honest question: why is this? Is it because someone may find free sugars too difficult to cut and other things (like red, fatty meats) easier because of their habits? Is it because someone may not be eating that much free sugars to begin with and could have weight problems due to other factors? I meant easier in the sense that cutting out the same volume reduces more calories compared to many other foods. If you are talking about habits and attachments, then you do have a point. I'm also talking about a generality - of course nothing applies to "everyone", except that we all got a mother and that we're all going to die someday.
The same volume of a fatty food contains more calories per gram than a sugary food. Alcohol contains more calories per gram than carbs. If we are simply suggesting efficiency of calorie reduction, should these 2 not be on the top of the list?
Alcohol certainly. Fats too, yes. But with respect to fat, since everyone is talking about their own individual experience, let me offer mine: I find it a lot harder to eat the same volume of pure fat (say pure butter or cooked animal fat chunk) than to eat that volume of a sugary treat.
Again - You are projecting your issues with sugar onto everyone else. This is what the food-group-demonizers tend to do on here on a regular basis.
Maybe you couldn't eat a whole bunch of fatty foods, but I sure as hell can.
I specifically stated "since everyone is talking about their own individual experience, let me offer mine". That is the opposite of projecting onto anyone (let alone everyone) else; it's as specific as it gets.
Again speaking for myself and not some group I don't even know I'm a part of, I couldn't demonize sugar if I wanted to. I am famous for loving sweet stuff among people who know me - both in its whole and added forms. I do understand your observation about "food-group-demonizers", but I see concern-demonizing (belittling anyone who displays or talks about concerns about a particular food group) happening a lot more. But that's just my observation.
Because you and many others are concerned about the wrong things. You have to look at the big picture. And you have to understand that just because you personally have issues with certain foods (sugar, gluten, peanuts, dairy, whatever) does not mean that any of those foods are bad for everyone. By all means, eat the diet that you will stick to, but don't decide that you can't eat sweets without binging on them and then go onto health/fitness forums preaching to everyone about the "dangers" of sweets. It doesn't work that way.
Wait, I can't tell you what the right thing for you to be concerned about is, but you can tell me what the wrong thing for me to be concerned about is? That doesn't sound right.
Hmm, and when a given individual does decide that for them it is sugar, and they post that here, there is no reason to jump on them right?
0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Sure it does. The wrong thing is overly focusing on a particular type of food which isn't a problem for everyone. The right thing is for each person to determine what cuts work best for them. Maybe that actually is sugar. Maybe it's not.Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
As can, for about the eleventy billionth time, moderating the intake of protein, fat, and alcohol. It's not either/or and there isn't one culprit.
So we agree, it's not the sugar...
Only if you eat at a surplus and gain weight. That said, weight gain can be achieved via any macro in surplus...Correct, but the NHS also indirectly links sugar consumption with diabetes, saying that added sugars can translate to weight gain, which can then lead to diabetes. (link)
I don't think I disputed that. But as I have said now in multiple posts, because of the concentration of sugars and thus calories (as well as the propensity to create cravings in the case of many), eating sugary foods and drinks make the calories add up faster by volume than many other foods.
Is overconsumption of free sugars, specifically free-sugar concentrated foods and drinks, "the sugar"? You can decide. I don't even think it matters. What does matter is moderating the intake of these foods can be effective in weight loss, and thus reducing the risk of metabolic disease.
And for the eleventy billionth time, I don't disagree with that. I am merely stating, for again what seems to be the eleventy billionth time, that it is easier to cut the calories by cutting the sugary foods and drinks than cutting many other things.
For you, maybe. What we are saying is: No, it is not easier for everyone to cut the calories by cutting the sugary foods and drinks. You are painting everyone with the same paintbrush.
Re: the bolded part an honest question: why is this? Is it because someone may find free sugars too difficult to cut and other things (like red, fatty meats) easier because of their habits? Is it because someone may not be eating that much free sugars to begin with and could have weight problems due to other factors? I meant easier in the sense that cutting out the same volume reduces more calories compared to many other foods. If you are talking about habits and attachments, then you do have a point. I'm also talking about a generality - of course nothing applies to "everyone", except that we all got a mother and that we're all going to die someday.
The same volume of a fatty food contains more calories per gram than a sugary food. Alcohol contains more calories per gram than carbs. If we are simply suggesting efficiency of calorie reduction, should these 2 not be on the top of the list?
Alcohol certainly. Fats too, yes. But with respect to fat, since everyone is talking about their own individual experience, let me offer mine: I find it a lot harder to eat the same volume of pure fat (say pure butter or cooked animal fat chunk) than to eat that volume of a sugary treat.
Again - You are projecting your issues with sugar onto everyone else. This is what the food-group-demonizers tend to do on here on a regular basis.
Maybe you couldn't eat a whole bunch of fatty foods, but I sure as hell can.
I specifically stated "since everyone is talking about their own individual experience, let me offer mine". That is the opposite of projecting onto anyone (let alone everyone) else; it's as specific as it gets.
Again speaking for myself and not some group I don't even know I'm a part of, I couldn't demonize sugar if I wanted to. I am famous for loving sweet stuff among people who know me - both in its whole and added forms. I do understand your observation about "food-group-demonizers", but I see concern-demonizing (belittling anyone who displays or talks about concerns about a particular food group) happening a lot more. But that's just my observation.
Because you and many others are concerned about the wrong things. You have to look at the big picture. And you have to understand that just because you personally have issues with certain foods (sugar, gluten, peanuts, dairy, whatever) does not mean that any of those foods are bad for everyone. By all means, eat the diet that you will stick to, but don't decide that you can't eat sweets without binging on them and then go onto health/fitness forums preaching to everyone about the "dangers" of sweets. It doesn't work that way.
Wait, I can't tell you what the right thing for you to be concerned about is, but you can tell me what the wrong thing for me to be concerned about is? That doesn't sound right.
Hmm, and when a given individual does decide that for them it is sugar, and they post that here, there is no reason to jump on them right?
You remember how in the other thread, you started backpedaling? You're doing that now. Because it didn't start out with you only being concerned for yourself. It started with you saying that added sugar is to blame for all sorts of things.
Maybe a moderator can answer this - is dragging other threads - especially a closed one - into a new one fine with the rules? Because if it is, I am happy to respond to this accusation. If not, it would be against forum rules. I am going to send an email to the mods and ask.
K.
Let me know what they say.0 -
Surely bringing up posting history isn't against the rules.Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Sure it does. The wrong thing is overly focusing on a particular type of food which isn't a problem for everyone. The right thing is for each person to determine what cuts work best for them. Maybe that actually is sugar. Maybe it's not.Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
As can, for about the eleventy billionth time, moderating the intake of protein, fat, and alcohol. It's not either/or and there isn't one culprit.
So we agree, it's not the sugar...
Only if you eat at a surplus and gain weight. That said, weight gain can be achieved via any macro in surplus...Correct, but the NHS also indirectly links sugar consumption with diabetes, saying that added sugars can translate to weight gain, which can then lead to diabetes. (link)
I don't think I disputed that. But as I have said now in multiple posts, because of the concentration of sugars and thus calories (as well as the propensity to create cravings in the case of many), eating sugary foods and drinks make the calories add up faster by volume than many other foods.
Is overconsumption of free sugars, specifically free-sugar concentrated foods and drinks, "the sugar"? You can decide. I don't even think it matters. What does matter is moderating the intake of these foods can be effective in weight loss, and thus reducing the risk of metabolic disease.
And for the eleventy billionth time, I don't disagree with that. I am merely stating, for again what seems to be the eleventy billionth time, that it is easier to cut the calories by cutting the sugary foods and drinks than cutting many other things.
For you, maybe. What we are saying is: No, it is not easier for everyone to cut the calories by cutting the sugary foods and drinks. You are painting everyone with the same paintbrush.
Re: the bolded part an honest question: why is this? Is it because someone may find free sugars too difficult to cut and other things (like red, fatty meats) easier because of their habits? Is it because someone may not be eating that much free sugars to begin with and could have weight problems due to other factors? I meant easier in the sense that cutting out the same volume reduces more calories compared to many other foods. If you are talking about habits and attachments, then you do have a point. I'm also talking about a generality - of course nothing applies to "everyone", except that we all got a mother and that we're all going to die someday.
The same volume of a fatty food contains more calories per gram than a sugary food. Alcohol contains more calories per gram than carbs. If we are simply suggesting efficiency of calorie reduction, should these 2 not be on the top of the list?
Alcohol certainly. Fats too, yes. But with respect to fat, since everyone is talking about their own individual experience, let me offer mine: I find it a lot harder to eat the same volume of pure fat (say pure butter or cooked animal fat chunk) than to eat that volume of a sugary treat.
Again - You are projecting your issues with sugar onto everyone else. This is what the food-group-demonizers tend to do on here on a regular basis.
Maybe you couldn't eat a whole bunch of fatty foods, but I sure as hell can.
I specifically stated "since everyone is talking about their own individual experience, let me offer mine". That is the opposite of projecting onto anyone (let alone everyone) else; it's as specific as it gets.
Again speaking for myself and not some group I don't even know I'm a part of, I couldn't demonize sugar if I wanted to. I am famous for loving sweet stuff among people who know me - both in its whole and added forms. I do understand your observation about "food-group-demonizers", but I see concern-demonizing (belittling anyone who displays or talks about concerns about a particular food group) happening a lot more. But that's just my observation.
Because you and many others are concerned about the wrong things. You have to look at the big picture. And you have to understand that just because you personally have issues with certain foods (sugar, gluten, peanuts, dairy, whatever) does not mean that any of those foods are bad for everyone. By all means, eat the diet that you will stick to, but don't decide that you can't eat sweets without binging on them and then go onto health/fitness forums preaching to everyone about the "dangers" of sweets. It doesn't work that way.
Wait, I can't tell you what the right thing for you to be concerned about is, but you can tell me what the wrong thing for me to be concerned about is? That doesn't sound right.
Hmm, and when a given individual does decide that for them it is sugar, and they post that here, there is no reason to jump on them right?
You remember how in the other thread, you started backpedaling? You're doing that now. Because it didn't start out with you only being concerned for yourself. It started with you saying that added sugar is to blame for all sorts of things.
Maybe a moderator can answer this - is dragging other threads - especially a closed one - into a new one fine with the rules? Because if it is, I am happy to respond to this accusation. If not, it would be against forum rules. I am going to send an email to the mods and ask.
0 -
-
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
As can, for about the eleventy billionth time, moderating the intake of protein, fat, and alcohol. It's not either/or and there isn't one culprit.
So we agree, it's not the sugar...
Only if you eat at a surplus and gain weight. That said, weight gain can be achieved via any macro in surplus...Correct, but the NHS also indirectly links sugar consumption with diabetes, saying that added sugars can translate to weight gain, which can then lead to diabetes. (link)
I don't think I disputed that. But as I have said now in multiple posts, because of the concentration of sugars and thus calories (as well as the propensity to create cravings in the case of many), eating sugary foods and drinks make the calories add up faster by volume than many other foods.
Is overconsumption of free sugars, specifically free-sugar concentrated foods and drinks, "the sugar"? You can decide. I don't even think it matters. What does matter is moderating the intake of these foods can be effective in weight loss, and thus reducing the risk of metabolic disease.
And for the eleventy billionth time, I don't disagree with that. I am merely stating, for again what seems to be the eleventy billionth time, that it is easier to cut the calories by cutting the sugary foods and drinks than cutting many other things.
For you, maybe. What we are saying is: No, it is not easier for everyone to cut the calories by cutting the sugary foods and drinks. You are painting everyone with the same paintbrush.
Re: the bolded part an honest question: why is this? Is it because someone may find free sugars too difficult to cut and other things (like red, fatty meats) easier because of their habits? Is it because someone may not be eating that much free sugars to begin with and could have weight problems due to other factors? I meant easier in the sense that cutting out the same volume reduces more calories compared to many other foods. If you are talking about habits and attachments, then you do have a point. I'm also talking about a generality - of course nothing applies to "everyone", except that we all got a mother and that we're all going to die someday.
The bolded is more in line with my issues. I can overeat anything. I love vegetables, and full-fat dairy, and fruits, and meat. I can put away a steak like nobody's business. I can easily moderate "sugary" foods but you give me a plate of cheese or a veggie platter with french onion dip and I can graze and eat all day long.
I overate all the foods.
Yeah, you and me both.
When I was a little kid I was pretty much happy with the moderate amount of sweets I was permitted, hated sugar cereal, and was a bread snob (I wouldn't eat what I called "sliced bread"--I'm sure this was a joy for my mother). But I could put away a steak. I've told this story before, but I recall being at a restaurant at a pretty young age, like 8 or 10, and ordering the steak, and the server trying to convince me to get something off the kid's menu and my dad said, no she'll eat it, and I did, some ridiculous amount (medium rare, of course).
It's kind of amazing I wasn't actually fat for the first time 'til I was nearly 30.0 -
this thread
going places0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
As can, for about the eleventy billionth time, moderating the intake of protein, fat, and alcohol. It's not either/or and there isn't one culprit.
So we agree, it's not the sugar...
Only if you eat at a surplus and gain weight. That said, weight gain can be achieved via any macro in surplus...Correct, but the NHS also indirectly links sugar consumption with diabetes, saying that added sugars can translate to weight gain, which can then lead to diabetes. (link)
I don't think I disputed that. But as I have said now in multiple posts, because of the concentration of sugars and thus calories (as well as the propensity to create cravings in the case of many), eating sugary foods and drinks make the calories add up faster by volume than many other foods.
Is overconsumption of free sugars, specifically free-sugar concentrated foods and drinks, "the sugar"? You can decide. I don't even think it matters. What does matter is moderating the intake of these foods can be effective in weight loss, and thus reducing the risk of metabolic disease.
And for the eleventy billionth time, I don't disagree with that. I am merely stating, for again what seems to be the eleventy billionth time, that it is easier to cut the calories by cutting the sugary foods and drinks than cutting many other things.
For you, maybe. What we are saying is: No, it is not easier for everyone to cut the calories by cutting the sugary foods and drinks. You are painting everyone with the same paintbrush.
Re: the bolded part an honest question: why is this? Is it because someone may find free sugars too difficult to cut and other things (like red, fatty meats) easier because of their habits? Is it because someone may not be eating that much free sugars to begin with and could have weight problems due to other factors? I meant easier in the sense that cutting out the same volume reduces more calories compared to many other foods. If you are talking about habits and attachments, then you do have a point. I'm also talking about a generality - of course nothing applies to "everyone", except that we all got a mother and that we're all going to die someday.
The bolded is more in line with my issues. I can overeat anything. I love vegetables, and full-fat dairy, and fruits, and meat. I can put away a steak like nobody's business. I can easily moderate "sugary" foods but you give me a plate of cheese or a veggie platter with french onion dip and I can graze and eat all day long.
I overate all the foods.
Yeah, you and me both.
When I was a little kid I was pretty much happy with the moderate amount of sweets I was permitted, hated sugar cereal, and was a bread snob (I wouldn't eat what I called "sliced bread"--I'm sure this was a joy for my mother). But I could put away a steak. I've told this story before, but I recall being at a restaurant at a pretty young age, like 8 or 10, and ordering the steak, and the server trying to convince me to get something off the kid's menu and my dad said, no she'll eat it, and I did, some ridiculous amount (medium rare, of course).
It's kind of amazing I wasn't actually fat for the first time 'til I was nearly 30.
Oh yes, I have always loved steak, even when my mom had to cut it up in little pieces for me to be able to chew it, haha.
I mentioned earlier, but my dad is a master at grilling. I'm just lucky my husband can't grill like my dad can. Those summer nights as a kid, eating grilled out burgers and steaks and pork chops - those were some great times.0 -
0
-
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »
Oh, I don't know. I'm still kind of traumatized from back in 1997 when my upstairs neighbors were obsessed with the soundtrack and would play it early with their windows open so I'd wake up to My Heart Will Go On every morning. Just thinking about it I'm reliving the pain.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Surely bringing up posting history isn't against the rules.Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Sure it does. The wrong thing is overly focusing on a particular type of food which isn't a problem for everyone. The right thing is for each person to determine what cuts work best for them. Maybe that actually is sugar. Maybe it's not.Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
As can, for about the eleventy billionth time, moderating the intake of protein, fat, and alcohol. It's not either/or and there isn't one culprit.
So we agree, it's not the sugar...
Only if you eat at a surplus and gain weight. That said, weight gain can be achieved via any macro in surplus...Correct, but the NHS also indirectly links sugar consumption with diabetes, saying that added sugars can translate to weight gain, which can then lead to diabetes. (link)
I don't think I disputed that. But as I have said now in multiple posts, because of the concentration of sugars and thus calories (as well as the propensity to create cravings in the case of many), eating sugary foods and drinks make the calories add up faster by volume than many other foods.
Is overconsumption of free sugars, specifically free-sugar concentrated foods and drinks, "the sugar"? You can decide. I don't even think it matters. What does matter is moderating the intake of these foods can be effective in weight loss, and thus reducing the risk of metabolic disease.
And for the eleventy billionth time, I don't disagree with that. I am merely stating, for again what seems to be the eleventy billionth time, that it is easier to cut the calories by cutting the sugary foods and drinks than cutting many other things.
For you, maybe. What we are saying is: No, it is not easier for everyone to cut the calories by cutting the sugary foods and drinks. You are painting everyone with the same paintbrush.
Re: the bolded part an honest question: why is this? Is it because someone may find free sugars too difficult to cut and other things (like red, fatty meats) easier because of their habits? Is it because someone may not be eating that much free sugars to begin with and could have weight problems due to other factors? I meant easier in the sense that cutting out the same volume reduces more calories compared to many other foods. If you are talking about habits and attachments, then you do have a point. I'm also talking about a generality - of course nothing applies to "everyone", except that we all got a mother and that we're all going to die someday.
The same volume of a fatty food contains more calories per gram than a sugary food. Alcohol contains more calories per gram than carbs. If we are simply suggesting efficiency of calorie reduction, should these 2 not be on the top of the list?
Alcohol certainly. Fats too, yes. But with respect to fat, since everyone is talking about their own individual experience, let me offer mine: I find it a lot harder to eat the same volume of pure fat (say pure butter or cooked animal fat chunk) than to eat that volume of a sugary treat.
Again - You are projecting your issues with sugar onto everyone else. This is what the food-group-demonizers tend to do on here on a regular basis.
Maybe you couldn't eat a whole bunch of fatty foods, but I sure as hell can.
I specifically stated "since everyone is talking about their own individual experience, let me offer mine". That is the opposite of projecting onto anyone (let alone everyone) else; it's as specific as it gets.
Again speaking for myself and not some group I don't even know I'm a part of, I couldn't demonize sugar if I wanted to. I am famous for loving sweet stuff among people who know me - both in its whole and added forms. I do understand your observation about "food-group-demonizers", but I see concern-demonizing (belittling anyone who displays or talks about concerns about a particular food group) happening a lot more. But that's just my observation.
Because you and many others are concerned about the wrong things. You have to look at the big picture. And you have to understand that just because you personally have issues with certain foods (sugar, gluten, peanuts, dairy, whatever) does not mean that any of those foods are bad for everyone. By all means, eat the diet that you will stick to, but don't decide that you can't eat sweets without binging on them and then go onto health/fitness forums preaching to everyone about the "dangers" of sweets. It doesn't work that way.
Wait, I can't tell you what the right thing for you to be concerned about is, but you can tell me what the wrong thing for me to be concerned about is? That doesn't sound right.
Hmm, and when a given individual does decide that for them it is sugar, and they post that here, there is no reason to jump on them right?
You remember how in the other thread, you started backpedaling? You're doing that now. Because it didn't start out with you only being concerned for yourself. It started with you saying that added sugar is to blame for all sorts of things.
Maybe a moderator can answer this - is dragging other threads - especially a closed one - into a new one fine with the rules? Because if it is, I am happy to respond to this accusation. If not, it would be against forum rules. I am going to send an email to the mods and ask.
Yes it can be against the rules as it can be viewed as inciting drama.
But at this point i might just close this thread as its pretty much full of drama and reading it makes me sad.
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Surely bringing up posting history isn't against the rules.Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Sure it does. The wrong thing is overly focusing on a particular type of food which isn't a problem for everyone. The right thing is for each person to determine what cuts work best for them. Maybe that actually is sugar. Maybe it's not.Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
As can, for about the eleventy billionth time, moderating the intake of protein, fat, and alcohol. It's not either/or and there isn't one culprit.
So we agree, it's not the sugar...
Only if you eat at a surplus and gain weight. That said, weight gain can be achieved via any macro in surplus...Correct, but the NHS also indirectly links sugar consumption with diabetes, saying that added sugars can translate to weight gain, which can then lead to diabetes. (link)
I don't think I disputed that. But as I have said now in multiple posts, because of the concentration of sugars and thus calories (as well as the propensity to create cravings in the case of many), eating sugary foods and drinks make the calories add up faster by volume than many other foods.
Is overconsumption of free sugars, specifically free-sugar concentrated foods and drinks, "the sugar"? You can decide. I don't even think it matters. What does matter is moderating the intake of these foods can be effective in weight loss, and thus reducing the risk of metabolic disease.
And for the eleventy billionth time, I don't disagree with that. I am merely stating, for again what seems to be the eleventy billionth time, that it is easier to cut the calories by cutting the sugary foods and drinks than cutting many other things.
For you, maybe. What we are saying is: No, it is not easier for everyone to cut the calories by cutting the sugary foods and drinks. You are painting everyone with the same paintbrush.
Re: the bolded part an honest question: why is this? Is it because someone may find free sugars too difficult to cut and other things (like red, fatty meats) easier because of their habits? Is it because someone may not be eating that much free sugars to begin with and could have weight problems due to other factors? I meant easier in the sense that cutting out the same volume reduces more calories compared to many other foods. If you are talking about habits and attachments, then you do have a point. I'm also talking about a generality - of course nothing applies to "everyone", except that we all got a mother and that we're all going to die someday.
The same volume of a fatty food contains more calories per gram than a sugary food. Alcohol contains more calories per gram than carbs. If we are simply suggesting efficiency of calorie reduction, should these 2 not be on the top of the list?
Alcohol certainly. Fats too, yes. But with respect to fat, since everyone is talking about their own individual experience, let me offer mine: I find it a lot harder to eat the same volume of pure fat (say pure butter or cooked animal fat chunk) than to eat that volume of a sugary treat.
Again - You are projecting your issues with sugar onto everyone else. This is what the food-group-demonizers tend to do on here on a regular basis.
Maybe you couldn't eat a whole bunch of fatty foods, but I sure as hell can.
I specifically stated "since everyone is talking about their own individual experience, let me offer mine". That is the opposite of projecting onto anyone (let alone everyone) else; it's as specific as it gets.
Again speaking for myself and not some group I don't even know I'm a part of, I couldn't demonize sugar if I wanted to. I am famous for loving sweet stuff among people who know me - both in its whole and added forms. I do understand your observation about "food-group-demonizers", but I see concern-demonizing (belittling anyone who displays or talks about concerns about a particular food group) happening a lot more. But that's just my observation.
Because you and many others are concerned about the wrong things. You have to look at the big picture. And you have to understand that just because you personally have issues with certain foods (sugar, gluten, peanuts, dairy, whatever) does not mean that any of those foods are bad for everyone. By all means, eat the diet that you will stick to, but don't decide that you can't eat sweets without binging on them and then go onto health/fitness forums preaching to everyone about the "dangers" of sweets. It doesn't work that way.
Wait, I can't tell you what the right thing for you to be concerned about is, but you can tell me what the wrong thing for me to be concerned about is? That doesn't sound right.
Hmm, and when a given individual does decide that for them it is sugar, and they post that here, there is no reason to jump on them right?
You remember how in the other thread, you started backpedaling? You're doing that now. Because it didn't start out with you only being concerned for yourself. It started with you saying that added sugar is to blame for all sorts of things.
Maybe a moderator can answer this - is dragging other threads - especially a closed one - into a new one fine with the rules? Because if it is, I am happy to respond to this accusation. If not, it would be against forum rules. I am going to send an email to the mods and ask.
Yes it can be against the rules as it can be viewed as inciting drama.
But at this point i might just close this thread as its pretty much full of drama and reading it makes me sad.
Pretty please with sugar on top????
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Surely bringing up posting history isn't against the rules.Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Sure it does. The wrong thing is overly focusing on a particular type of food which isn't a problem for everyone. The right thing is for each person to determine what cuts work best for them. Maybe that actually is sugar. Maybe it's not.Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
As can, for about the eleventy billionth time, moderating the intake of protein, fat, and alcohol. It's not either/or and there isn't one culprit.
So we agree, it's not the sugar...
Only if you eat at a surplus and gain weight. That said, weight gain can be achieved via any macro in surplus...Correct, but the NHS also indirectly links sugar consumption with diabetes, saying that added sugars can translate to weight gain, which can then lead to diabetes. (link)
I don't think I disputed that. But as I have said now in multiple posts, because of the concentration of sugars and thus calories (as well as the propensity to create cravings in the case of many), eating sugary foods and drinks make the calories add up faster by volume than many other foods.
Is overconsumption of free sugars, specifically free-sugar concentrated foods and drinks, "the sugar"? You can decide. I don't even think it matters. What does matter is moderating the intake of these foods can be effective in weight loss, and thus reducing the risk of metabolic disease.
And for the eleventy billionth time, I don't disagree with that. I am merely stating, for again what seems to be the eleventy billionth time, that it is easier to cut the calories by cutting the sugary foods and drinks than cutting many other things.
For you, maybe. What we are saying is: No, it is not easier for everyone to cut the calories by cutting the sugary foods and drinks. You are painting everyone with the same paintbrush.
Re: the bolded part an honest question: why is this? Is it because someone may find free sugars too difficult to cut and other things (like red, fatty meats) easier because of their habits? Is it because someone may not be eating that much free sugars to begin with and could have weight problems due to other factors? I meant easier in the sense that cutting out the same volume reduces more calories compared to many other foods. If you are talking about habits and attachments, then you do have a point. I'm also talking about a generality - of course nothing applies to "everyone", except that we all got a mother and that we're all going to die someday.
The same volume of a fatty food contains more calories per gram than a sugary food. Alcohol contains more calories per gram than carbs. If we are simply suggesting efficiency of calorie reduction, should these 2 not be on the top of the list?
Alcohol certainly. Fats too, yes. But with respect to fat, since everyone is talking about their own individual experience, let me offer mine: I find it a lot harder to eat the same volume of pure fat (say pure butter or cooked animal fat chunk) than to eat that volume of a sugary treat.
Again - You are projecting your issues with sugar onto everyone else. This is what the food-group-demonizers tend to do on here on a regular basis.
Maybe you couldn't eat a whole bunch of fatty foods, but I sure as hell can.
I specifically stated "since everyone is talking about their own individual experience, let me offer mine". That is the opposite of projecting onto anyone (let alone everyone) else; it's as specific as it gets.
Again speaking for myself and not some group I don't even know I'm a part of, I couldn't demonize sugar if I wanted to. I am famous for loving sweet stuff among people who know me - both in its whole and added forms. I do understand your observation about "food-group-demonizers", but I see concern-demonizing (belittling anyone who displays or talks about concerns about a particular food group) happening a lot more. But that's just my observation.
Because you and many others are concerned about the wrong things. You have to look at the big picture. And you have to understand that just because you personally have issues with certain foods (sugar, gluten, peanuts, dairy, whatever) does not mean that any of those foods are bad for everyone. By all means, eat the diet that you will stick to, but don't decide that you can't eat sweets without binging on them and then go onto health/fitness forums preaching to everyone about the "dangers" of sweets. It doesn't work that way.
Wait, I can't tell you what the right thing for you to be concerned about is, but you can tell me what the wrong thing for me to be concerned about is? That doesn't sound right.
Hmm, and when a given individual does decide that for them it is sugar, and they post that here, there is no reason to jump on them right?
You remember how in the other thread, you started backpedaling? You're doing that now. Because it didn't start out with you only being concerned for yourself. It started with you saying that added sugar is to blame for all sorts of things.
Maybe a moderator can answer this - is dragging other threads - especially a closed one - into a new one fine with the rules? Because if it is, I am happy to respond to this accusation. If not, it would be against forum rules. I am going to send an email to the mods and ask.
Meh, I was moreso pointing out his backpedaling than "dragging other threads" into this discussion. But people will resort to crazy tactics when they don't feel like answering questions.0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
As can, for about the eleventy billionth time, moderating the intake of protein, fat, and alcohol. It's not either/or and there isn't one culprit.
So we agree, it's not the sugar...
Only if you eat at a surplus and gain weight. That said, weight gain can be achieved via any macro in surplus...Correct, but the NHS also indirectly links sugar consumption with diabetes, saying that added sugars can translate to weight gain, which can then lead to diabetes. (link)
I don't think I disputed that. But as I have said now in multiple posts, because of the concentration of sugars and thus calories (as well as the propensity to create cravings in the case of many), eating sugary foods and drinks make the calories add up faster by volume than many other foods.
Is overconsumption of free sugars, specifically free-sugar concentrated foods and drinks, "the sugar"? You can decide. I don't even think it matters. What does matter is moderating the intake of these foods can be effective in weight loss, and thus reducing the risk of metabolic disease.
And for the eleventy billionth time, I don't disagree with that. I am merely stating, for again what seems to be the eleventy billionth time, that it is easier to cut the calories by cutting the sugary foods and drinks than cutting many other things.
For you, maybe. What we are saying is: No, it is not easier for everyone to cut the calories by cutting the sugary foods and drinks. You are painting everyone with the same paintbrush.
Re: the bolded part an honest question: why is this? Is it because someone may find free sugars too difficult to cut and other things (like red, fatty meats) easier because of their habits? Is it because someone may not be eating that much free sugars to begin with and could have weight problems due to other factors? I meant easier in the sense that cutting out the same volume reduces more calories compared to many other foods. If you are talking about habits and attachments, then you do have a point. I'm also talking about a generality - of course nothing applies to "everyone", except that we all got a mother and that we're all going to die someday.
It's easier to reduce everything by a little than one thing completely because I don't have to miss out on something I like that way.0 -
mantium999 wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
As can, for about the eleventy billionth time, moderating the intake of protein, fat, and alcohol. It's not either/or and there isn't one culprit.
So we agree, it's not the sugar...
Only if you eat at a surplus and gain weight. That said, weight gain can be achieved via any macro in surplus...Correct, but the NHS also indirectly links sugar consumption with diabetes, saying that added sugars can translate to weight gain, which can then lead to diabetes. (link)
I don't think I disputed that. But as I have said now in multiple posts, because of the concentration of sugars and thus calories (as well as the propensity to create cravings in the case of many), eating sugary foods and drinks make the calories add up faster by volume than many other foods.
Is overconsumption of free sugars, specifically free-sugar concentrated foods and drinks, "the sugar"? You can decide. I don't even think it matters. What does matter is moderating the intake of these foods can be effective in weight loss, and thus reducing the risk of metabolic disease.
And for the eleventy billionth time, I don't disagree with that. I am merely stating, for again what seems to be the eleventy billionth time, that it is easier to cut the calories by cutting the sugary foods and drinks than cutting many other things.
For you, maybe. What we are saying is: No, it is not easier for everyone to cut the calories by cutting the sugary foods and drinks. You are painting everyone with the same paintbrush.
Re: the bolded part an honest question: why is this? Is it because someone may find free sugars too difficult to cut and other things (like red, fatty meats) easier because of their habits? Is it because someone may not be eating that much free sugars to begin with and could have weight problems due to other factors? I meant easier in the sense that cutting out the same volume reduces more calories compared to many other foods. If you are talking about habits and attachments, then you do have a point. I'm also talking about a generality - of course nothing applies to "everyone", except that we all got a mother and that we're all going to die someday.
The same volume of a fatty food contains more calories per gram than a sugary food. Alcohol contains more calories per gram than carbs. If we are simply suggesting efficiency of calorie reduction, should these 2 not be on the top of the list?
Alcohol certainly. Fats too, yes. But with respect to fat, since everyone is talking about their own individual experience, let me offer mine: I find it a lot harder to eat the same volume of pure fat (say pure butter or cooked animal fat chunk) than to eat that volume of a sugary treat, and a ton more so of it's a sugary drink. I don't think I could stomach raw oil at all, by contrast.
The sugary treat isn't pure sugar so your comparison is bad. Most sugary treats have a whole bunch of fat, usually more calories from fat than other stuff.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
As can, for about the eleventy billionth time, moderating the intake of protein, fat, and alcohol. It's not either/or and there isn't one culprit.
So we agree, it's not the sugar...
Only if you eat at a surplus and gain weight. That said, weight gain can be achieved via any macro in surplus...Correct, but the NHS also indirectly links sugar consumption with diabetes, saying that added sugars can translate to weight gain, which can then lead to diabetes. (link)
I don't think I disputed that. But as I have said now in multiple posts, because of the concentration of sugars and thus calories (as well as the propensity to create cravings in the case of many), eating sugary foods and drinks make the calories add up faster by volume than many other foods.
Is overconsumption of free sugars, specifically free-sugar concentrated foods and drinks, "the sugar"? You can decide. I don't even think it matters. What does matter is moderating the intake of these foods can be effective in weight loss, and thus reducing the risk of metabolic disease.
And for the eleventy billionth time, I don't disagree with that. I am merely stating, for again what seems to be the eleventy billionth time, that it is easier to cut the calories by cutting the sugary foods and drinks than cutting many other things.
For you, maybe. What we are saying is: No, it is not easier for everyone to cut the calories by cutting the sugary foods and drinks. You are painting everyone with the same paintbrush.
Re: the bolded part an honest question: why is this? Is it because someone may find free sugars too difficult to cut and other things (like red, fatty meats) easier because of their habits? Is it because someone may not be eating that much free sugars to begin with and could have weight problems due to other factors? I meant easier in the sense that cutting out the same volume reduces more calories compared to many other foods. If you are talking about habits and attachments, then you do have a point. I'm also talking about a generality - of course nothing applies to "everyone", except that we all got a mother and that we're all going to die someday.
It's easier to reduce everything by a little than one thing completely because I don't have to miss out on something I like that way.
Agree completely, because that's a nice, moderate solution.
But let's cue some endless arguing about just how dumbed down the general population needs their medical advice to be. We live in the age of soundbites and short attention spans after all, we're told we can't expect too much of everyone.
(My eyes couldn't roll further out of my head at this point.)
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
stevencloser wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
As can, for about the eleventy billionth time, moderating the intake of protein, fat, and alcohol. It's not either/or and there isn't one culprit.
So we agree, it's not the sugar...
Only if you eat at a surplus and gain weight. That said, weight gain can be achieved via any macro in surplus...Correct, but the NHS also indirectly links sugar consumption with diabetes, saying that added sugars can translate to weight gain, which can then lead to diabetes. (link)
I don't think I disputed that. But as I have said now in multiple posts, because of the concentration of sugars and thus calories (as well as the propensity to create cravings in the case of many), eating sugary foods and drinks make the calories add up faster by volume than many other foods.
Is overconsumption of free sugars, specifically free-sugar concentrated foods and drinks, "the sugar"? You can decide. I don't even think it matters. What does matter is moderating the intake of these foods can be effective in weight loss, and thus reducing the risk of metabolic disease.
And for the eleventy billionth time, I don't disagree with that. I am merely stating, for again what seems to be the eleventy billionth time, that it is easier to cut the calories by cutting the sugary foods and drinks than cutting many other things.
For you, maybe. What we are saying is: No, it is not easier for everyone to cut the calories by cutting the sugary foods and drinks. You are painting everyone with the same paintbrush.
Re: the bolded part an honest question: why is this? Is it because someone may find free sugars too difficult to cut and other things (like red, fatty meats) easier because of their habits? Is it because someone may not be eating that much free sugars to begin with and could have weight problems due to other factors? I meant easier in the sense that cutting out the same volume reduces more calories compared to many other foods. If you are talking about habits and attachments, then you do have a point. I'm also talking about a generality - of course nothing applies to "everyone", except that we all got a mother and that we're all going to die someday.
The same volume of a fatty food contains more calories per gram than a sugary food. Alcohol contains more calories per gram than carbs. If we are simply suggesting efficiency of calorie reduction, should these 2 not be on the top of the list?
Alcohol certainly. Fats too, yes. But with respect to fat, since everyone is talking about their own individual experience, let me offer mine: I find it a lot harder to eat the same volume of pure fat (say pure butter or cooked animal fat chunk) than to eat that volume of a sugary treat, and a ton more so of it's a sugary drink. I don't think I could stomach raw oil at all, by contrast.
The sugary treat isn't pure sugar so your comparison is bad. Most sugary treats have a whole bunch of fat, usually more calories from fat than other stuff.
Which proves that one way to take in large amounts of fat is to ingest it with a bunch of free sugars. So yes that wasn't as good a comparison as comparing with sugar crystals, but what you've just proven is that cutting down on sugary treats also helps one cut down on fat! Awesome!0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 423 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions