Daily goals: Sugar
Replies
-
kshama2001 wrote: »OP, don't stress the sugar thing too much, especially since the majority of it is coming from whole and nutritious foods.
I have no problem with plain yogurt, but put sweetened yogurt in the treat box with ice cream due to the added sugar.
Just for comparison, I used a cup of ice cream, although a serving is actually 1/2 cup.
17 grams of protein for 240 calories is much better than a treat, added sugar be damned. The separation is silly anyway.0 -
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??
Hmm. I've done my research. Start reading.
so its my job to figure out what claims you are trying to make?
sorry, does not work that way. If you want to make ridiculous claims then back them up with said research/literature.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
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: What's sugar going to do to me?
You: Dunno, you could be someone who can "eat garbage" without harm.
Thus, you have just equated eating sugar -- including the sugar in the apple the OP asked about -- with eating garbage.
Wish that wasn't so typical of these discussions, but it is.
Op was told not to worry about sugar numbers based on y'all's anecdotal experiences. DT tried to turn it into what sugar was going to do to him. I don't care that you all have no issues with sugar, it is about general sugar concerns. I attempted to point this out.
OP really doesn't need to hear your personal lack of sugar worries projected onto his surpassing mfps suggested limits. Chances are since OP is on mfp monitoring, is asking about sugar limits and eating over mfps limit that maybe they could use some help in the other direction of sugar consumption?
Are you insinuating that the OP should listen to your fear mongering of sugar vs our lack of concern for sugar as overall dietary context is more important?
Honestly and quite sadly, we all believe in similar beliefs but different approaches (LCHF vs IIFYM/Flexible). We believe in getting more whole foods, foods high in fiber and having a balanced diet. We all believe that getting foods from a variety of sources is optimal as it will allow you to get the most amount of micronutrients. And we all believe that exercise is beneficial to health and wellness.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
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: What's sugar going to do to me?
You: Dunno, you could be someone who can "eat garbage" without harm.
Thus, you have just equated eating sugar -- including the sugar in the apple the OP asked about -- with eating garbage.
Wish that wasn't so typical of these discussions, but it is.
Op was told not to worry about sugar numbers based on y'all's anecdotal experiences. DT tried to turn it into what sugar was going to do to him. I don't care that you all have no issues with sugar, it is about general sugar concerns. I attempted to point this out.
OP really doesn't need to hear your personal lack of sugar worries projected onto his surpassing mfps suggested limits. Chances are since OP is on mfp monitoring, is asking about sugar limits and eating over mfps limit that maybe they could use some help in the other direction of sugar consumption?
Yeah, just because the general public doesn't have issues with sugar doesn't mean there are no general sugar concerns. Wait.
The fact that so many people, including diabetics, are telling you there's no need to be overly restrictive in your sugar should tell you something. Evidently it does not.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
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: What's sugar going to do to me?
You: Dunno, you could be someone who can "eat garbage" without harm.
Thus, you have just equated eating sugar -- including the sugar in the apple the OP asked about -- with eating garbage.
Wish that wasn't so typical of these discussions, but it is.
Op was told not to worry about sugar numbers based on y'all's anecdotal experiences. DT tried to turn it into what sugar was going to do to him. I don't care that you all have no issues with sugar, it is about general sugar concerns. I attempted to point this out.
OP really doesn't need to hear your personal lack of sugar worries projected onto his surpassing mfps suggested limits. Chances are since OP is on mfp monitoring, is asking about sugar limits and eating over mfps limit that maybe they could use some help in the other direction of sugar consumption?
Anecdotal?
You mean lack of supporting science for your sugar is to be avoided claims
Please define and source your "worries" and "concerns"
0 -
By "turn it into what sugar was going to do to [me]" you really mean "Asking for clarification of your statement that 'Unless you want to have a medical condition you should consider worrying about sugar'," right?lemurcat12 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
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: What's sugar going to do to me?
You: Dunno, you could be someone who can "eat garbage" without harm.
Thus, you have just equated eating sugar -- including the sugar in the apple the OP asked about -- with eating garbage.
Wish that wasn't so typical of these discussions, but it is.
Op was told not to worry about sugar numbers based on y'all's anecdotal experiences. DT tried to turn it into what sugar was going to do to him. I don't care that you all have no issues with sugar, it is about general sugar concerns. I attempted to point this out.
OP really doesn't need to hear your personal lack of sugar worries projected onto his surpassing mfps suggested limits. Chances are since OP is on mfp monitoring, is asking about sugar limits and eating over mfps limit that maybe they could use some help in the other direction of sugar consumption?
You write about some vague, ominous-sounding "something," and when asked to clarify, the asker has turned it into something else? I don't think that's how any of this works.0 -
stevencloser 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
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.
OP asked about exceeding sugar limits, what are you trying to say?0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
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: What's sugar going to do to me?
You: Dunno, you could be someone who can "eat garbage" without harm.
Thus, you have just equated eating sugar -- including the sugar in the apple the OP asked about -- with eating garbage.
Wish that wasn't so typical of these discussions, but it is.
Consign
Their only argument is sugar is bad and eventually you will die ....thus, it should be avoided.....
'Their' did not even remotely say any of that.0 -
stevencloser 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
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.
OP asked about exceeding sugar limits, what are you trying to say?
You know, that there's nothing to "worry" about unless you're going really REALLY overboard with it like with literally every single substance you can put into your mouth?0 -
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??
Hmm. I've done my research. Start reading.
Show me one medical condition that specifically states that sugar causes that medical condition... I am talking causation, not correlation.
No such animal exists.
Wouldn't it be cool if the science could prove causation of negative health effects in humans without hurting the humans they studied? We might be able to stop these conversations.0 -
Show me one medical condition in rats that specifically states that sugar causes that medical condition... I am talking causation, not correlation.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
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: What's sugar going to do to me?
You: Dunno, you could be someone who can "eat garbage" without harm.
Thus, you have just equated eating sugar -- including the sugar in the apple the OP asked about -- with eating garbage.
Wish that wasn't so typical of these discussions, but it is.
Consign
Their only argument is sugar is bad and eventually you will die ....thus, it should be avoided.....
'Their' did not even remotely say any of that.
last time I checked their does not refer to a singular individual….0 -
It would be cooler if people didn't make stuff up to make money out of the desperate or gullible
Like toxins that require detoxes
And sugar is the debil
Waist cinchers0 -
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??
Hmm. I've done my research. Start reading.
so its my job to figure out what claims you are trying to make?
sorry, does not work that way. If you want to make ridiculous claims then back them up with said research/literature.
Wait, it was ridiculous claims with no science in the early replies that sucked me into this thread. When did this standard evolve?0 -
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??
Hmm. I've done my research. Start reading.
so its my job to figure out what claims you are trying to make?
sorry, does not work that way. If you want to make ridiculous claims then back them up with said research/literature.
Wait, it was ridiculous claims with no science in the early replies that sucked me into this thread. When did this standard evolve?
now you are just changing the subject…
still waiting for this supposed "research" that you have done….0 -
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
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)
That is a fine contention. You test it and report back when you are 80.
another ridiculous spacious argument. So if someone ate a moderate amount of sugar and dies at age 80 then it must be because of sugar…
conversely, if someone was LC/HF and dies at age 79, we can then make the concussion that the LC/HF lifestyle is what lead to their untimely demise, right? Because there would be no other reason that someone would die of old age…oh wait...0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
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: What's sugar going to do to me?
You: Dunno, you could be someone who can "eat garbage" without harm.
Thus, you have just equated eating sugar -- including the sugar in the apple the OP asked about -- with eating garbage.
Wish that wasn't so typical of these discussions, but it is.
Op was told not to worry about sugar numbers based on y'all's anecdotal experiences. DT tried to turn it into what sugar was going to do to him. I don't care that you all have no issues with sugar, it is about general sugar concerns. I attempted to point this out.
OP really doesn't need to hear your personal lack of sugar worries projected onto his surpassing mfps suggested limits. Chances are since OP is on mfp monitoring, is asking about sugar limits and eating over mfps limit that maybe they could use some help in the other direction of sugar consumption?
Are you insinuating that the OP should listen to your fear mongering of sugar vs our lack of concern for sugar as overall dietary context is more important?
Honestly and quite sadly, we all believe in similar beliefs but different approaches (LCHF vs IIFYM/Flexible). We believe in getting more whole foods, foods high in fiber and having a balanced diet. We all believe that getting foods from a variety of sources is optimal as it will allow you to get the most amount of micronutrients. And we all believe that exercise is beneficial to health and wellness.
I think it's clear that OP needs to hear both perspectives and use their own brain to figure out what applies to them.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
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: What's sugar going to do to me?
You: Dunno, you could be someone who can "eat garbage" without harm.
Thus, you have just equated eating sugar -- including the sugar in the apple the OP asked about -- with eating garbage.
Wish that wasn't so typical of these discussions, but it is.
Op was told not to worry about sugar numbers based on y'all's anecdotal experiences. DT tried to turn it into what sugar was going to do to him. I don't care that you all have no issues with sugar, it is about general sugar concerns. I attempted to point this out.
OP really doesn't need to hear your personal lack of sugar worries projected onto his surpassing mfps suggested limits. Chances are since OP is on mfp monitoring, is asking about sugar limits and eating over mfps limit that maybe they could use some help in the other direction of sugar consumption?
Are you insinuating that the OP should listen to your fear mongering of sugar vs our lack of concern for sugar as overall dietary context is more important?
Honestly and quite sadly, we all believe in similar beliefs but different approaches (LCHF vs IIFYM/Flexible). We believe in getting more whole foods, foods high in fiber and having a balanced diet. We all believe that getting foods from a variety of sources is optimal as it will allow you to get the most amount of micronutrients. And we all believe that exercise is beneficial to health and wellness.
I think it's clear that OP needs to hear both perspectives and use their own brain to figure out what applies to them.
what is the other perspective…sugar is bad, because you have done your "research" and say it is…?0 -
stevencloser wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
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: What's sugar going to do to me?
You: Dunno, you could be someone who can "eat garbage" without harm.
Thus, you have just equated eating sugar -- including the sugar in the apple the OP asked about -- with eating garbage.
Wish that wasn't so typical of these discussions, but it is.
Op was told not to worry about sugar numbers based on y'all's anecdotal experiences. DT tried to turn it into what sugar was going to do to him. I don't care that you all have no issues with sugar, it is about general sugar concerns. I attempted to point this out.
OP really doesn't need to hear your personal lack of sugar worries projected onto his surpassing mfps suggested limits. Chances are since OP is on mfp monitoring, is asking about sugar limits and eating over mfps limit that maybe they could use some help in the other direction of sugar consumption?
Yeah, just because the general public doesn't have issues with sugar doesn't mean there are no general sugar concerns. Wait.
The fact that so many people, including diabetics, are telling you there's no need to be overly restrictive in your sugar should tell you something. Evidently it does not.
An estimated half the US population is projected to have some level of insulin resistance. If you look at overweight and obese populations, the proportion is probably even higher here on MFP. The audience here is more likely than not to have issues with sugar/carbs. That alone validates the need to hear both sides of the conversation about sugar.
Re:diabetics - you do understand that some T2 diabetes can be reversed or remissioned by tight carb restrictions? And some T1 diabetics can manage their blood sugar better and decrease drugs with tight carb restriction? Diabetics being treated with drugs must eat carbohydrates at a level that matches the level their drugs are optimised for - is that why the diabetic mentioned must eat carbs?0 -
Your argument is entirely different from "sugar is unnecessary".0
-
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??
Hmm. I've done my research. Start reading.
so its my job to figure out what claims you are trying to make?
sorry, does not work that way. If you want to make ridiculous claims then back them up with said research/literature.
Wait, it was ridiculous claims with no science in the early replies that sucked me into this thread. When did this standard evolve?
now you are just changing the subject…
still waiting for this supposed "research" that you have done….
I'm still waiting for your links.0 -
I keep seeing that half of us population and IR stat bandied about ...I looked for the source once found this on medline
http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/122501-overview#a5
"In the United States, the frequency of insulin resistance is observed to be 3% in the general population; a several-fold increase occurs in individuals with glucose intolerance."
Where is this 50% stat from?
0 -
I see higher numbers here, @rabbitjb . I think the last time I added it up it was something like 20%, including estimated undiagnosed.
http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/statistics/?referrer=https://www.google.ca/0 -
The metabolism of sugar and processing of sugar is very natural, and insulin is natural. It's a balancing act that the body manages every day, with most of us being quite unaware of it.0
-
DeguelloTex wrote: »
So it's just a matter of happenstance that breast milk is sugary? The sugar's in the milk just because it was conveniently there to be used?
Why does baby "formula" exist ? no idea, infant nutrition isn't my thing. The question about necessity requires evidence that a baby has to have sugary milk, rather than it being a convenient circulating substrate in the mothers body.
I have no idea, if breast milk happens to be sweet it may well be in part because one of the substrates circulating in the blood is glucose and that's a convenient energy source. Sweetness also makes it something the baby desires, providing motivation to suckle or stay latched on.
I did read up that the EU's scientific body puts a maximum limit on the "optional" addition of sugars to formula milks, and prohibits the addition of sucrose, fructose or glucose to formula based on milk protein (due to lactose that comes with he milk). If you choose to formulate using other proteins they place a limit of 20% on sugars and say in the preamble -
" The absolute dietary requirement for glycaemic carbohydrates is not known because there is no indispensable carbohydrate. For practical purposes, recommendations for glycaemic carbohydrates will depend on the amount of fat and protein ingested. " (my bold)
So in effect they set an energy intake, levels of essential proteins and fats and say you can fill the gap with sugars and starches. Which is not dissimilar to some in this thread arguing that once your nutritional needs are met you can add sugars to get to your energy goal.
Ref: Table 10 etc in http://www.efsa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/scientific_output/files/main_documents/3760.pdf0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
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: What's sugar going to do to me?
You: Dunno, you could be someone who can "eat garbage" without harm.
Thus, you have just equated eating sugar -- including the sugar in the apple the OP asked about -- with eating garbage.
Wish that wasn't so typical of these discussions, but it is.
Op was told not to worry about sugar numbers based on y'all's anecdotal experiences. DT tried to turn it into what sugar was going to do to him. I don't care that you all have no issues with sugar, it is about general sugar concerns. I attempted to point this out.
OP really doesn't need to hear your personal lack of sugar worries projected onto his surpassing mfps suggested limits. Chances are since OP is on mfp monitoring, is asking about sugar limits and eating over mfps limit that maybe they could use some help in the other direction of sugar consumption?
OP was given good advice about context and an overall nutritious diet that meets macros and micros and she agreed it made sense to watch fiber, not sugar some time back.
MFP's 15% limit on ALL sugar isn't really backed up with anything credible.
But sure, keep calling apples "garbage." That demonstrates your own credibility.0 -
Here you go yarwell http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/392766
Human breast milk has evolved to be the perfect source of nutrition for newborns and babies. The WHO advises breastfeeding exclusively to 6 months and breastfeeding to beyond 2 years.
0 -
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?
I've never met a Type 2 diabetic that does carry sugar and reported incidences of hypoglycaemia in T2D are pretty rare and probably all down to certain drugs or insulin (most diabetics I know are only on Metformin. I'm more likely to meet T2Ds with a blood glucose of 10 (180 in American) than anyone worrying about hypoglycaemia.
T2Ds on a ketogenic diet http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2633336/ and hypoglycaemia isn't mentioned, just reducing medications.
Type 1s yes I've witnessed and treated hypoglycaemia. My cousin died at 14 from inappropriate treatment of her diabetes in an emergency. Paramedics carry 5g shots of glucose. But this is like arguing that aspirin is an essential because people get headaches.
Why does baby "formula" exist ? no idea, infant nutrition isn't my thing. The question about necessity requires evidence that a baby has to have sugary milk, rather than it being a convenient circulating substrate in the mothers body. Go tell the experts at the IoM that they got it wrong and carbohydrate intake is a pre-requisite for life. (Thinking about it, the sugar in formula could be there just to provide a dry sterile powder, but I don't know that).
Unless the OP is a diabetic, which I doubt, how does this even apply to the OP?
Go back and read again, jgnatca was clinging to a life raft of diabetes and infant nutrition to support an idea that sugars were in some way essential / necessary.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions