Maybe Sugar IS the Devil - US Goverment Diet Recommendations
Options
Replies
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ChrisM8971 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ChrisM8971 wrote: »Its far cheaper for governments to demonise a certain food group to try and limit calories and reduce the weight of a population (and therefore reduce associated health costs etc) than to educate about moderation and nutrition. Hence it was fats before it was sugars, just a way of trying to scare the population
Has the govt. ever "demonized" a food or food group? Advising that we limit foods is pretty far from demonizing.
I don't know, informing the population that fats were harmful without scientific evidence seems pretty demonising of fats
it wouldn't be, but did the govt. do that? Did they ever say "fats are harmful"? Other than maybe trans fats.
yes, they did in the 1980s0 -
-
0
-
nope, nope, nope, over consuming calories is what is the devil. YOu can eat limited sugar and be obese; conversely, you can eat added sugar as part of an overall healthy diet and maintain a healthy weight.
sugar has nothing to do with it, and should only be avoided in instances where one has a medical condition.
Exactly this.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »The Dietary Guidelines (how the gov't tries to educate people) are really quite reasonable, as is MyPlate. I'm as happy to criticize the gov't as many people, but here I think it's the media that deserves the criticism.
Or anyone equating sugar and the devil, of course.
Yep...lest anyone misconstrue my comments in this thread, I think that the guidelines in this case are perfectly reasonable. Even as someone who tends to take the "all things in moderation" approach, I doubt I come close to more than 10% of calories from added sugar in my diet more than maybe a couple times a week.
My comments were geared toward the article, and the (I believe tongue-in-cheek) title of the thread.
I admit the sugar is the devil was tongue in cheek and agree with your thoughts and those of many posters on moderation.
I also agree thw guidelines on added sugar are very directionally correct and feel the excess sugar hidden in many products is a large factor in many people's weight issues.
I'm always intrigued by the statement that the hidden sugars in many processed foods are to something to watch out for if you are watching your weight. Why, exactly? Is it just that sugar adds calorie density to foods? Ok, fine. So I need to consider those calories and how they fit into my whole day in order to make sure that I don't exceed my calorie goal. Any other reason? People always throw out salad dressing as being a prime example of a food that has hidden sugars that we need to be wary of. A serving (2 Tbsp or 30g) of Kraft Ranch dressing has 110 calories and 1 gram of sugar. It says it right there on the label, so it isn't exactly hidden, and the calories are listed as well, so I can easily determine if that is something that I can accommodate in my day (110 calories - sure thing). 1 g doesn't seem excessive to me, in light of the guidelines we are discussing above.
So why exactly is the sugar in the salad dressing something I need to be concerned about if calories are what matter for weight loss?
I get this totally. I am not diabetic, so no real concern about too much sugar, other than the excess calories, but excess calories is an issue for me in any form.
Instead of demonizing any one food in particular, emphasis should be placed on our over indulging in too much of any food, and to not consume more calories than our bodies burn. As in most things, education is key, not demonizing sugar or any other food.
0 -
Yeah, but the devil didn't put it there.
Sugar cane, however, was invented by Satan himself to poison our systems, dull our minds, give us diabetes and make us obese.
Mary Poppins was an agent of evil.0 -
Sugar's not de debil, it's just one of his playthings.
In the 80's it was all low fat everything. To make up for it they did (and still do) replace the fat content with sugar. And since high-fructose corn syrup is easier to handle than cane sugar (and corn is subsidized) HFCS use reached a peak in the 1990s.
Personally, I'll take the slowly-digested fat over HFCS and it's quick trip through my system (and requisite insulin spike) any day of the week.0 -
-
-
0
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ChrisM8971 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ChrisM8971 wrote: »Its far cheaper for governments to demonise a certain food group to try and limit calories and reduce the weight of a population (and therefore reduce associated health costs etc) than to educate about moderation and nutrition. Hence it was fats before it was sugars, just a way of trying to scare the population
Has the govt. ever "demonized" a food or food group? Advising that we limit foods is pretty far from demonizing.
I don't know, informing the population that fats were harmful without scientific evidence seems pretty demonising of fats
it wouldn't be, but did the govt. do that? Did they ever say "fats are harmful"? Other than maybe trans fats.
yes, they did in the 1980s
I don't think so. I again think that was the media. I was an adult in the 80's and I seem to remember the recommendation to cut back on fat (low fat). Because too much fat is harmful (true statement) and we, as a nation, were eating too much.
Why would they recommend eating any fat at all if it were harmful?
The govt., specifically the USDA, did get it wrong there though. The recommendation from nutritionists to the USDA was to reduce saturated fat, not total fat. The USDA thought we were too lazy or stupid to worry about different types of fat so they just said "reduce fat".
Or so I have read.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »
Yes.
Enclose in pie crust
Eat with a scoop of ice cream
I should market this
Edited to haiku it0 -
Alluminati wrote: »Does that make God a cauliflower?
Food racism is alive and well. Why can't God be a turnip? Devil color on the outside but . . . . .no wait...nvm...poor example.
0 -
I almost never go over 10% of my daily calories from added sugar. Like some have said, if one focuses on eating a well balanced diet, this recommendation shouldn't really be an issue, as there won't be much room for added sugar to make up more than 10% of calories.0
-
-
juggernaut1974 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »
Yes.
Enclose in pie crust
Eat with a scoop of ice cream
I should market this
Edited to haiku it
I prefer crumble
Blueberries brown sugar oats
Cast Iron Skillet0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »I almost never go over 10% of my daily calories from added sugar. Like some have said, if one focuses on eating a well balanced diet, this recommendation shouldn't really be an issue, as there won't be much room for added sugar to make up more than 10% of calories.
I feel like attempting to calculate added sugar right now would just make my eye twitch. It will get easier once the food label splits it out (for example, how much sugar in my apple cinnamon oatmeal is added, and how much is from the apples?).0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »
Yeah, but the devil didn't put it there.
Sugar cane, however, was invented by Satan himself to poison our systems, dull our minds, give us diabetes and make us obese.
Mary Poppins was an agent of evil.
Of course.
0 -
No food is or should be considered the devil. Too many calories, the culprit to weight gain. Lets keep the devil out of it unless its devil-ed eggs or devils food cake. Yum.0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGmmiMbflc4
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 400 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
- 988 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions