Daily goals: Sugar
Options
Replies
-
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 -
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.
Dental Caries.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/
Worth noting that the US currently puts the cutoff for IR at a much lower level than many other countries, including the UK. And estimates for undiagnosed are questionable because people with risk factors are far more likely to be tested (this is my own experience).
Also, one big tipoff for IR is that one is not satisfied when eating lots of processed carbs and has trouble sticking with a calorie limit, which of course is not something that OP said at all.0 -
Sugar, the staff of life. It is natural, and it is needed. Most obviously for infants and diabetics. But glucose runs in your veins too, @yarwell .
Yes, and the point is that glucose runs in my veins irrespective of whether I eat any sugar or indeed carbohydrate at all.
You do understand that ? What's in your blood stream is influenced by, but not wholly dependant on what you eat.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.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3900881/
The mammalian brain depends upon glucose as its main source of energy, and tight regulation of glucose metabolism is critical for brain physiology. Consistent with its critical role for physiological brain function, disruption of normal glucose metabolism as well as its interdependence with cell death pathways forms the pathophysiological basis for many brain disorders.
0 -
Also, who cares if sugar is "necessary" or not. (The body basically makes it if you don't eat it, which is why claiming it's toxic or inherently garbage is absurd.) The question was whether eating above the MFP limit (actually a number that seemed lower than the current MFP limit) from nutrient dense foods with fiber like apples and some likely sweetened greek yogurt (with lots of protein) is something to worry about. So far no one has given any credible reason as to why it would be, assuming someone otherwise meets their macros and has a good diet and, rolling eyes, follows normal recommended dental hygiene.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.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3900881/
The mammalian brain depends upon glucose as its main source of energy, and tight regulation of glucose metabolism is critical for brain physiology. Consistent with its critical role for physiological brain function, disruption of normal glucose metabolism as well as its interdependence with cell death pathways forms the pathophysiological basis for many brain disorders.
Doesn't say a jot about dietary sugars. People who eat no sugar are normoglycaemic.
Unless the brain has a secret passage to smuggle carbs past my bloodstream it gets the same fuel via my bloodstream as anyone else without me eating any sugar. In fact my liver is hell bent on oversupplying the stuff.0 -
Sugar, the staff of life. It is natural, and it is needed. Most obviously for infants and diabetics. But glucose runs in your veins too, @yarwell .
Yes, and the point is that glucose runs in my veins irrespective of whether I eat any sugar or indeed carbohydrate at all.
You do understand that ? What's in your blood stream is influenced by, but not wholly dependant on what you eat.
Yes we understand
But there's no issue with eating sugar either0 -
stevencloser wrote: »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.
Cottage cheese is a far better source of protein from dairy than sweetened yogurt:
Again, I used a cup for comparison, although an actual serving is 1/2 cup
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.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3900881/
The mammalian brain depends upon glucose as its main source of energy, and tight regulation of glucose metabolism is critical for brain physiology. Consistent with its critical role for physiological brain function, disruption of normal glucose metabolism as well as its interdependence with cell death pathways forms the pathophysiological basis for many brain disorders.
Doesn't say a jot about dietary sugars. People who eat no sugar are normoglycaemic.
Unless the brain has a secret passage to smuggle carbs past my bloodstream it gets the same fuel via my bloodstream as anyone else without me eating any sugar. In fact my liver is hell bent on oversupplying the stuff.
And we keep asking what's the problem with eating sugars within a balanced nutritionally sound diet if you have no medical issues0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 999 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions