Say no to sugar
Replies
-
mantium999 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.
Many are more than happy to drench everything in ranch dressing.
If it's homemade ranch dressing made completely from ingredients that you can pronounce, then it's "clean" and the calories don't count.
I always make sure to drown my veggies in my homemade ranch dressing while drinking my 32-oz mason jar full of wine.0 -
mantium999 wrote: »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?
Only if you think people eat a constant number of grams and therefore reducing kcal/g is the way to go.
Alcohol is protective against Type 2 diabetes (Nurses Health Study) so I would think twice about that.
0 -
i will never say no to sugar.
i will say no to eating it all day every day.
0 -
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.0 -
I cut out all added sugar for one month a while back. It was my daughters idea and I did it with her. Nothing happened. I didn't control my calories otherwise and I didn't lose even so much as an ounce of weight. I felt no differently physically or mentally. I don't eat that much sugar. Now take away my chips and beer and I might cut someone! Lol yeah, I need to watch all the macros in order to lose weight. Sugar is the least of my problems tbh.0
-
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.
Then maybe you should take a break from the forums. I know I will, because of posters like you and a lot of others.
-5 -
I've done low carb, too. There were times when I basically had room in my macros for protein and fat... with the occasional corn tortilla. Now that my calorie goal has gone up, I eat a lot more carbs. And I lost weight as expected both ways. And in neither situation did I feel compelled to tell anything that that's what she should be doing, too.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.
0 -
angellll12 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.
Then maybe you should take a break from the forums. I know I will, because of posters like you and a lot of others.
What was wrong with the quoted poster's comment? She made a very valid point.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Anyone figure out this added sugar stuff? I need to know if 5,000 calories of cheese cake for dessert is ok, or will kill me instantly.0
-
-
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »
Well at least it will be glorious, and tasty.0 -
lol You might need a plumber?0
-
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.
+1
0 -
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.0 -
I will just say right now, I called it on page one, and now it's official.
Marshmallows for all!0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »
Well at least it will be glorious, and tasty.
I would totally welcome death by cheesecake coma. Particularly a white-chocolate raspberry cheesecake.0 -
Can we just call worrying about added sugar for diabetes the dietary equivalent of rearranging chairs on the Titanic? Too soon?0
-
A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down.
0 -
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!
0 -
-
tincanonastring wrote: »See, I'm one of those rare people whose body runs solely on sugar. It's literally all I eat. Everybody should try my way. It's the only way to loose weight!
I thought your body Prancercized on sugar?
0 -
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.
0 -
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.0 -
Sugar is nothing in comparison to other stuff i eat. I love beef. And I can easily get 2k in calories between a 12 to 16oz prime rib, baked potato with butter and a house salad.
Total calories with 12oz = 1890
Sugars 21 g
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
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.0 -
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.
0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »
Spoiler alert: the ship sinks!0 -
This content has been removed.
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