Daily goals: Sugar

Options
2456715

Replies

  • umayster
    umayster Posts: 651 Member
    Options
    Unless you want to have a medical condition you should consider worrying about sugar.

    There are many things you body needs and if you are displacing those things and substituting unneeded sugar calories instead, eventually you will have nutritional or metabolic consequences.

    Sugar is fun to eat, don' mistake it for necessary.

  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    edited November 2015
    Options
    umayster wrote: »
    Unless you want to have a medical condition you should consider worrying about sugar.

    There are many things you body needs and if you are displacing those things and substituting unneeded sugar calories instead, eventually you will have nutritional or metabolic consequences.

    Sugar is fun to eat, don' mistake it for necessary.

    So you imply that sugar causes medical conditions?

    I could understand that a diet lacking in nutrients or exceeding in calories would..but your first sentence is in direct opposition to you second

    It's the lack of nutritional balance that leads to issues
  • jgnatca
    jgnatca Posts: 14,464 Member
    Options
    umayster wrote: »
    Sugar is fun to eat, don' mistake it for necessary.

    Necessary for diabetics and babies. Sometimes life-saving even. There's a reason there are sugars in mother's milk.

  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    Options
    Necessary for poorly controlled diabetics who might need 5 grams to get out of a hypoglycaemic event perhaps. Most diabetics by definition have too much sugar in their blood.
  • DeguelloTex
    DeguelloTex Posts: 6,652 Member
    Options
    umayster wrote: »
    Unless you want to have a medical condition you should consider worrying about sugar.
    What's sugar going to do to me about which I should consider worrying?

  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    Options
    I wouldn't *kitten*-u-me everyone logs everything they eat every day with clockwork adherence.
  • jgnatca
    jgnatca Posts: 14,464 Member
    Options
    @yarwell , yes. As a type 2 diabetic I watched my intake carefully; all my macros and fiber too. It's a delicate balancing act but still necessary. Just because sugar has to be watched so closely by diabetics does not make it any less necessary for bodily functions. Sugar does not cause disease.
  • umayster
    umayster Posts: 651 Member
    Options
    rabbitjb wrote: »
    umayster wrote: »
    Unless you want to have a medical condition you should consider worrying about sugar.

    There are many things you body needs and if you are displacing those things and substituting unneeded sugar calories instead, eventually you will have nutritional or metabolic consequences.

    Sugar is fun to eat, don' mistake it for necessary.

    So you imply that sugar causes medical conditions?

    I could understand that a diet lacking in nutrients or exceeding in calories would..but your first sentence is in direct opposition to you second

    It's the lack of nutritional balance that leads to issues
    jgnatca wrote: »
    umayster wrote: »
    Sugar is fun to eat, don' mistake it for necessary.

    Necessary for diabetics and babies. Sometimes life-saving even. There's a reason there are sugars in mother's milk.

    Context matters. Excess or added sugars are unnecessary and can be detrimental to nutritional and metabolic health and weight goals. Do you really want to take a position on the other side of that?
  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    Options
    umayster wrote: »
    rabbitjb wrote: »
    umayster wrote: »
    Unless you want to have a medical condition you should consider worrying about sugar.

    There are many things you body needs and if you are displacing those things and substituting unneeded sugar calories instead, eventually you will have nutritional or metabolic consequences.

    Sugar is fun to eat, don' mistake it for necessary.

    So you imply that sugar causes medical conditions?

    I could understand that a diet lacking in nutrients or exceeding in calories would..but your first sentence is in direct opposition to you second

    It's the lack of nutritional balance that leads to issues
    jgnatca wrote: »
    umayster wrote: »
    Sugar is fun to eat, don' mistake it for necessary.

    Necessary for diabetics and babies. Sometimes life-saving even. There's a reason there are sugars in mother's milk.

    Context matters. Excess or added sugars are unnecessary and can be detrimental to nutritional and metabolic health and weight goals. Do you really want to take a position on the other side of that?

    Yes

    My contention would be, as someone without a medical condition that contraindicates sugar consumption that if I meet my macro and micro nutritional requirements I can fill the rest of my calorie allowance with cotton candy or tablespoons of granulated sugar if I wish with no health detriment (beyond potential dental)
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    Options
    The Institutes of Medicine recognise that the amount of dietary carbohydrate intake compatible with life is apparently zero. Eating sugar isn't necessary. It may be a useful food ingredient, pleasurable, desirable, even optimal, but not necessary for life as an external input.
  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    Options
    Not what anybody is saying ..but you know that
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    Options
    umayster wrote: »
    Unless you want to have a medical condition you should consider worrying about sugar.

    There are many things you body needs and if you are displacing those things and substituting unneeded sugar calories instead, eventually you will have nutritional or metabolic consequences.

    Sugar is fun to eat, don' mistake it for necessary.

    What medical condition would sugar cause in the context of a diet that hits micros and macros??
  • DeguelloTex
    DeguelloTex Posts: 6,652 Member
    edited November 2015
    Options
    umayster wrote: »
    rabbitjb wrote: »
    umayster wrote: »
    Unless you want to have a medical condition you should consider worrying about sugar.

    There are many things you body needs and if you are displacing those things and substituting unneeded sugar calories instead, eventually you will have nutritional or metabolic consequences.

    Sugar is fun to eat, don' mistake it for necessary.

    So you imply that sugar causes medical conditions?

    I could understand that a diet lacking in nutrients or exceeding in calories would..but your first sentence is in direct opposition to you second

    It's the lack of nutritional balance that leads to issues
    jgnatca wrote: »
    umayster wrote: »
    Sugar is fun to eat, don' mistake it for necessary.

    Necessary for diabetics and babies. Sometimes life-saving even. There's a reason there are sugars in mother's milk.

    Context matters. Excess or added sugars are unnecessary and can be detrimental to nutritional and metabolic health and weight goals. Do you really want to take a position on the other side of that?
    Excess water is unnecessary and can be detrimental to staying alive. "Can be" is, shall we say, pretty broad in scope. That something "can be" doesn't mean that it "will be," "probably will be," or even "is remotely fracking likely to be."

    If you want to make all your life, or dietary, decisions based on what "can be," obviously you should do so.
  • umayster
    umayster Posts: 651 Member
    Options
    umayster wrote: »
    Unless you want to have a medical condition you should consider worrying about sugar.
    What's sugar going to do to me about which I should consider worrying?

    You?, I haven't the slightest clue. You could be one of those people who break all the science, eat garbage and your body finds a way to cope without harm. You could be a very rare bird with a special formula that works just for you.
  • DeguelloTex
    DeguelloTex Posts: 6,652 Member
    Options
    umayster wrote: »
    umayster wrote: »
    Unless you want to have a medical condition you should consider worrying about sugar.
    What's sugar going to do to me about which I should consider worrying?

    You?, I haven't the slightest clue. You could be one of those people who break all the science, eat garbage and your body finds a way to cope without harm. You could be a very rare bird with a special formula that works just for you.
    No, hell, presume I'm just a regular guy. About what should I be worrying if I eat added sugar?
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    Options
    umayster wrote: »
    umayster wrote: »
    Unless you want to have a medical condition you should consider worrying about sugar.
    What's sugar going to do to me about which I should consider worrying?

    You?, I haven't the slightest clue. You could be one of those people who break all the science, eat garbage and your body finds a way to cope without harm. You could be a very rare bird with a special formula that works just for you.

    Lol so anyone that consumes sugar now has a garbage diet???

    Way to generalize
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    Options
    rabbitjb wrote: »
    Not what anybody is saying ..but you know that

    someone seems to be insisting that sugar is necessary. Seems inconsistent with no carbohydrate being necessary .. but you knew that.
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    Options
    umayster wrote: »
    rabbitjb wrote: »
    umayster wrote: »
    Unless you want to have a medical condition you should consider worrying about sugar.

    There are many things you body needs and if you are displacing those things and substituting unneeded sugar calories instead, eventually you will have nutritional or metabolic consequences.

    Sugar is fun to eat, don' mistake it for necessary.

    So you imply that sugar causes medical conditions?

    I could understand that a diet lacking in nutrients or exceeding in calories would..but your first sentence is in direct opposition to you second

    It's the lack of nutritional balance that leads to issues
    jgnatca wrote: »
    umayster wrote: »
    Sugar is fun to eat, don' mistake it for necessary.

    Necessary for diabetics and babies. Sometimes life-saving even. There's a reason there are sugars in mother's milk.

    Context matters. Excess or added sugars are unnecessary and can be detrimental to nutritional and metabolic health and weight goals. Do you really want to take a position on the other side of that?

    Excess protein, excess fat, even excess vitamins can be detrimental to your health. Balance of all nutrition is vital for health. But obviously you didn't say any of that. You told them to worry about sugar instead of taking care of a good balance.
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    Options
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    umayster wrote: »
    Unless you want to have a medical condition you should consider worrying about sugar.

    There are many things you body needs and if you are displacing those things and substituting unneeded sugar calories instead, eventually you will have nutritional or metabolic consequences.

    Sugar is fun to eat, don' mistake it for necessary.

    What medical condition would sugar cause in the context of a diet that hits micros and macros??

    Dental caries is the widely accepted one.

    http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/26/4/1008.full says it doesn't cause diabetes as a primary factor.

    Shorter-term studies show consistent adverse effects of sugar consumption on HDL and triglyceride levels, which could accelerate atherosclerosis.

    But there's no smoking gun which is why sugar is "generally recognised as safe" even in it's "added" guise.
  • jgnatca
    jgnatca Posts: 14,464 Member
    Options
    Show me a baby's formula that doesn't contain sugar. If it's not necessary, why is it there? Sugars are fast-acting carbs. Sometimes we need fast-acting.

    Show me a smart diabetic who doesn't carry emergency sugar with them. If it wasn't necessary, why are there glucotabs?