Maybe Sugar IS the Devil - US Goverment Diet Recommendations
Replies
-
I remember eating spoonfuls of sugar when I was a wee lad, I was a hyperactive nut case.0
-
RobertHolland567 wrote: »I remember eating spoonfuls of sugar when I was a wee lad, I was a hyperactive nut case.
That little boy from Mary Poppins seemed pretty messed up too.0 -
The whole point of the government guidelines can be summarized in the following manner.
PART 1: THE HISTORY- Americans are too fat
- Americans are too fat because they eat too much food
- Americans eat too much food because food is cheap and tastes good
- American food tastes good because it has sugar, salt and fat in it
- If we make American food taste bad, Americans will eat less
- If Americans eat less they will not be so fat.
PART 2: THE PRESENT- We tried to get Americans to give up fat
- Decades of public promotion of low-fat diets worked to get Americans to eat less fats
- Americans compensated for low-fat diets with more sugar and salt
- Americans are still eating way too much food.
- Therefore American food still tastes too good, even though it's low-fat.
PART 3: THE FUTURE- What makes American food taste good? The sugar and salt.
- Let's get Americans to give up their sugar and salt.
- Then American food will taste bad
- And Americans will quit eating too much
- And they won't be so fat.
0 -
Yeah, this is true. Though in my case, most of the added sugar I eat is in foods I directly add it to, so it's not that hard to calculate.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 -
I like it, tomtebata, but Americans never actually adopted low-fat diets, and I'd amend "Americans are still eating way too much food" to "Americans are eating EVEN MORE food." Here's a good source, although they don't have numbers beyond 2000, sadly: http://www.usda.gov/factbook/chapter2.pdf
There are lots of low fat items, but a lot of the cheap processed foods that people eat are full of fat too. The Salt, Sugar, Fat book has a good discussion on the increase of fat in convenience items, and if you just look at the "junk food" people tend to eat (and refer to as "carbs") many have just about the same number of calories from fat -- sweet baked goods, potato chips and fries, fast food in general, major chain pizza, etc. The one big exception is soda and energy drinks.0 -
His point was sugar spiking blood sugar, not protein. I know protein has been shown to raise insulin, but the real issue is high blood glucose leading to insulin resistance. And blood glucose won't be spiked as much from protein as from carbs.Sugar spikes blood sugar. Do that too often or too much, and insulin resistance results. Inflammation follows. When you are 100-110 lbs overweight for years like I was, IR is a big deal. Hitting 277 lbs and judged pre-diabetic by my doctor a year ago, suffering from joint pain and gum recession (inflammation), I made the decision to make the Big Change. Not only did I give up refined sugar, but also all grains (whole grains, especially wheat, spike blood sugar more than table sugar).
A year later, I have lost 50 lbs, have no joint or lower back pain, and gum recession has reversed. Increased energy, elevated mood. Most of my major improvements came in 2-3 weeks after eliminating all grains and grain products. Weight loss took longer. The program I followed is called "Wheat Belly."
Four months ago, I moved from WB to Nutritional Ketosis, or as I call it, WB+. I had plateaued my weight loss over several months. NK (not to be confused with Ketoacidosis, a dangerous condition in T1 diabetics) emphasizes very low carbs (<10-15 g), moderate protein (70-90 g), and higher fats (80% of calories +). It has broken my IR and I have been steadily losing since moving to NK. Hit my lowest weight in years yesterday. 50 lbs down, 60 to go.
MFP has been my best friend on WB and NK. The display of macros Carbs, Fats, Proteins makes computing the Ketogenic Ratio (how ketogenic any food or meal or day is) a snap. My only wish is that MFP add the KR calculator in its list of nutrients. It's a simple formula.
WB and NK has given me back my health at age 67. The USDA recommended "6-11 servings of whole grains" and "limited fats" is a recipe for obesity, diabetes, as well as providing a rich environment for cancers (love glucose) and dementia (oxidation in neurons). It is no wonder American obesity, diabetes, cancer, and dementia has grown exponentially since these food guidelines were first published in the 1970s.
I have no vested interested in WB or NK beyond being a grateful recipient of their pathway to health. You can read the stories of thousands (with pictures) at OfficialWheatBelly on Facebook. Or get the lowdown on NK from "Butter Bob" Briggs at website "ButterMakesYourPantsFallOff" or Jimmy Moore's excellent research summary in "Keto Clarity."
If you are having trouble losing weight . . . stalled at a certain point . . . simply lower carbs and raise healthy fats. Beyond that, check out these resources for a new way of looking at the American Food Industry.
protein spikes insulin too, so are you recommending avoiding that?
and to your last point, if you are in a caloric surplus and just lower carbs and increase fat and are still in said surplus, you will not lose any additional fat, because caloric surplus.0 -
So why is there so much added sugar in foods today? Well it is due in no small part to the fat is bad scare of the 1980's for two reasons. 1) When you reduce fat the food tastes of cardboard so you load it with sugar and salt to get some taste back. 2) Low fat is anything with less than 30% of its calories from fat so if you load the food with sugar to increase its total calories you reduce the % of calories from fat. So the infamous fat scare of the 80's has ultimately led to these "hidden added sugars" in our foods. I worry about what is next when the sugar scare does not reduce the obesity epidemic0
-
I look at it from the standpoint that a lot of people should reduce the amount of added sugar and salt in their diet, not that they need to cut it all out.The whole point of the government guidelines can be summarized in the following manner.
PART 1: THE HISTORY- Americans are too fat
- Americans are too fat because they eat too much food
- Americans eat too much food because food is cheap and tastes good
- American food tastes good because it has sugar, salt and fat in it
- If we make American food taste bad, Americans will eat less
- If Americans eat less they will not be so fat.
PART 2: THE PRESENT- We tried to get Americans to give up fat
- Decades of public promotion of low-fat diets worked to get Americans to eat less fats
- Americans compensated for low-fat diets with more sugar and salt
- Americans are still eating way too much food.
- Therefore American food still tastes too good, even though it's low-fat.
PART 3: THE FUTURE- What makes American food taste good? The sugar and salt.
- Let's get Americans to give up their sugar and salt.
- Then American food will taste bad
- And Americans will quit eating too much
- And they won't be so fat.
0 -
ChrisM8971 wrote: »So why is there so much added sugar in foods today? Well it is due in no small part to the fat is bad scare of the 1980's for two reasons. 1) When you reduce fat the food tastes of cardboard so you load it with sugar and salt to get some taste back. 2) Low fat is anything with less than 30% of its calories from fat so if you load the food with sugar to increase its total calories you reduce the % of calories from fat. So the infamous fat scare of the 80's has ultimately led to these "hidden added sugars" in our foods. I worry about what is next when the sugar scare does not reduce the obesity epidemic
I think I'm gonna go buy the web domain wateristhedevil.com now while I still can
0 -
juggernaut1974 wrote: »ChrisM8971 wrote: »So why is there so much added sugar in foods today? Well it is due in no small part to the fat is bad scare of the 1980's for two reasons. 1) When you reduce fat the food tastes of cardboard so you load it with sugar and salt to get some taste back. 2) Low fat is anything with less than 30% of its calories from fat so if you load the food with sugar to increase its total calories you reduce the % of calories from fat. So the infamous fat scare of the 80's has ultimately led to these "hidden added sugars" in our foods. I worry about what is next when the sugar scare does not reduce the obesity epidemic
I think I'm gonna go buy the web domain wateristhedevil.com now while I still can
Where is the like button when you need it
0 -
@lemurcat12
That report is a bit dated (2001). The last 15 years have brought about some interesting changes.
"Americans Are Finally Eating Less" - New York Times, July 24, 2015
There was a certain amount of tongue-in-cheek on my post. 0 -
Yay, though I walk through the aisles of chocolate and cookies I shall feel no evil, for thou art with me. Thy carrot and jerky stick comfort me.
Gives a whole new meaning to "Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies" for sure.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
His point was sugar spiking blood sugar, not protein. I know protein has been shown to raise insulin, but the real issue is high blood glucose leading to insulin resistance. And blood glucose won't be spiked as much from protein as from carbs.Sugar spikes blood sugar. Do that too often or too much, and insulin resistance results. Inflammation follows. When you are 100-110 lbs overweight for years like I was, IR is a big deal. Hitting 277 lbs and judged pre-diabetic by my doctor a year ago, suffering from joint pain and gum recession (inflammation), I made the decision to make the Big Change. Not only did I give up refined sugar, but also all grains (whole grains, especially wheat, spike blood sugar more than table sugar).
A year later, I have lost 50 lbs, have no joint or lower back pain, and gum recession has reversed. Increased energy, elevated mood. Most of my major improvements came in 2-3 weeks after eliminating all grains and grain products. Weight loss took longer. The program I followed is called "Wheat Belly."
Four months ago, I moved from WB to Nutritional Ketosis, or as I call it, WB+. I had plateaued my weight loss over several months. NK (not to be confused with Ketoacidosis, a dangerous condition in T1 diabetics) emphasizes very low carbs (<10-15 g), moderate protein (70-90 g), and higher fats (80% of calories +). It has broken my IR and I have been steadily losing since moving to NK. Hit my lowest weight in years yesterday. 50 lbs down, 60 to go.
MFP has been my best friend on WB and NK. The display of macros Carbs, Fats, Proteins makes computing the Ketogenic Ratio (how ketogenic any food or meal or day is) a snap. My only wish is that MFP add the KR calculator in its list of nutrients. It's a simple formula.
WB and NK has given me back my health at age 67. The USDA recommended "6-11 servings of whole grains" and "limited fats" is a recipe for obesity, diabetes, as well as providing a rich environment for cancers (love glucose) and dementia (oxidation in neurons). It is no wonder American obesity, diabetes, cancer, and dementia has grown exponentially since these food guidelines were first published in the 1970s.
I have no vested interested in WB or NK beyond being a grateful recipient of their pathway to health. You can read the stories of thousands (with pictures) at OfficialWheatBelly on Facebook. Or get the lowdown on NK from "Butter Bob" Briggs at website "ButterMakesYourPantsFallOff" or Jimmy Moore's excellent research summary in "Keto Clarity."
If you are having trouble losing weight . . . stalled at a certain point . . . simply lower carbs and raise healthy fats. Beyond that, check out these resources for a new way of looking at the American Food Industry.
protein spikes insulin too, so are you recommending avoiding that?
and to your last point, if you are in a caloric surplus and just lower carbs and increase fat and are still in said surplus, you will not lose any additional fat, because caloric surplus.
actually, according to this - http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/index.php/free-content/free-content/volume-1-issue-7-insulin-and-thinking-better/insulin-an-undeserved-bad-reputation/ - they are about the same.
so please explain to me why the carb spike is bad but the protein spike is good?
0 -
I really hope that an added sugar category be added to the food label. If the livestock producers did not have such a powerful lobby, red meat would be the devil too and processed meat would be the worstest devil of them all.0
-
ForecasterJason wrote: »
His point was sugar spiking blood sugar, not protein. I know protein has been shown to raise insulin, but the real issue is high blood glucose leading to insulin resistance. And blood glucose won't be spiked as much from protein as from carbs.Sugar spikes blood sugar. Do that too often or too much, and insulin resistance results. Inflammation follows. When you are 100-110 lbs overweight for years like I was, IR is a big deal. Hitting 277 lbs and judged pre-diabetic by my doctor a year ago, suffering from joint pain and gum recession (inflammation), I made the decision to make the Big Change. Not only did I give up refined sugar, but also all grains (whole grains, especially wheat, spike blood sugar more than table sugar).
A year later, I have lost 50 lbs, have no joint or lower back pain, and gum recession has reversed. Increased energy, elevated mood. Most of my major improvements came in 2-3 weeks after eliminating all grains and grain products. Weight loss took longer. The program I followed is called "Wheat Belly."
Four months ago, I moved from WB to Nutritional Ketosis, or as I call it, WB+. I had plateaued my weight loss over several months. NK (not to be confused with Ketoacidosis, a dangerous condition in T1 diabetics) emphasizes very low carbs (<10-15 g), moderate protein (70-90 g), and higher fats (80% of calories +). It has broken my IR and I have been steadily losing since moving to NK. Hit my lowest weight in years yesterday. 50 lbs down, 60 to go.
MFP has been my best friend on WB and NK. The display of macros Carbs, Fats, Proteins makes computing the Ketogenic Ratio (how ketogenic any food or meal or day is) a snap. My only wish is that MFP add the KR calculator in its list of nutrients. It's a simple formula.
WB and NK has given me back my health at age 67. The USDA recommended "6-11 servings of whole grains" and "limited fats" is a recipe for obesity, diabetes, as well as providing a rich environment for cancers (love glucose) and dementia (oxidation in neurons). It is no wonder American obesity, diabetes, cancer, and dementia has grown exponentially since these food guidelines were first published in the 1970s.
I have no vested interested in WB or NK beyond being a grateful recipient of their pathway to health. You can read the stories of thousands (with pictures) at OfficialWheatBelly on Facebook. Or get the lowdown on NK from "Butter Bob" Briggs at website "ButterMakesYourPantsFallOff" or Jimmy Moore's excellent research summary in "Keto Clarity."
If you are having trouble losing weight . . . stalled at a certain point . . . simply lower carbs and raise healthy fats. Beyond that, check out these resources for a new way of looking at the American Food Industry.
protein spikes insulin too, so are you recommending avoiding that?
and to your last point, if you are in a caloric surplus and just lower carbs and increase fat and are still in said surplus, you will not lose any additional fat, because caloric surplus.
actually, according to this - http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/index.php/free-content/free-content/volume-1-issue-7-insulin-and-thinking-better/insulin-an-undeserved-bad-reputation/ - they are about the same.
so please explain to me why the carb spike is bad but the protein spike is good?
Beat me to it, I was going to post that research review.
All the "sugar is da debilz" people fail to realize (or ignore) the fact that protein creates a nearly identical BG spike to carbs. Then it creates a cognitive dissonance because it's been drummed into their heads that sugar is da debilz. Dogma can be a hard thing for some people to let go of, even in the face of science. Maybe next we'll be hearing that protein is da debilz.0 -
Sugar is too sweet to be the devil, or is it?0
-
@lemurcat12
That report is a bit dated (2001). The last 15 years have brought about some interesting changes.
"Americans Are Finally Eating Less" - New York Times, July 24, 2015 There was a certain amount of tongue-in-cheek on my post.
Oh, I got that. Like I said, I liked it!
I think overall consumption is still way up vs. the 1980s and 1990s, though. And my bigger point was that we didn't actually adopt "low fat." We talked about it a lot and Snackwells made some $$, though.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
His point was sugar spiking blood sugar, not protein. I know protein has been shown to raise insulin, but the real issue is high blood glucose leading to insulin resistance. And blood glucose won't be spiked as much from protein as from carbs.Sugar spikes blood sugar. Do that too often or too much, and insulin resistance results. Inflammation follows. When you are 100-110 lbs overweight for years like I was, IR is a big deal. Hitting 277 lbs and judged pre-diabetic by my doctor a year ago, suffering from joint pain and gum recession (inflammation), I made the decision to make the Big Change. Not only did I give up refined sugar, but also all grains (whole grains, especially wheat, spike blood sugar more than table sugar).
A year later, I have lost 50 lbs, have no joint or lower back pain, and gum recession has reversed. Increased energy, elevated mood. Most of my major improvements came in 2-3 weeks after eliminating all grains and grain products. Weight loss took longer. The program I followed is called "Wheat Belly."
Four months ago, I moved from WB to Nutritional Ketosis, or as I call it, WB+. I had plateaued my weight loss over several months. NK (not to be confused with Ketoacidosis, a dangerous condition in T1 diabetics) emphasizes very low carbs (<10-15 g), moderate protein (70-90 g), and higher fats (80% of calories +). It has broken my IR and I have been steadily losing since moving to NK. Hit my lowest weight in years yesterday. 50 lbs down, 60 to go.
MFP has been my best friend on WB and NK. The display of macros Carbs, Fats, Proteins makes computing the Ketogenic Ratio (how ketogenic any food or meal or day is) a snap. My only wish is that MFP add the KR calculator in its list of nutrients. It's a simple formula.
WB and NK has given me back my health at age 67. The USDA recommended "6-11 servings of whole grains" and "limited fats" is a recipe for obesity, diabetes, as well as providing a rich environment for cancers (love glucose) and dementia (oxidation in neurons). It is no wonder American obesity, diabetes, cancer, and dementia has grown exponentially since these food guidelines were first published in the 1970s.
I have no vested interested in WB or NK beyond being a grateful recipient of their pathway to health. You can read the stories of thousands (with pictures) at OfficialWheatBelly on Facebook. Or get the lowdown on NK from "Butter Bob" Briggs at website "ButterMakesYourPantsFallOff" or Jimmy Moore's excellent research summary in "Keto Clarity."
If you are having trouble losing weight . . . stalled at a certain point . . . simply lower carbs and raise healthy fats. Beyond that, check out these resources for a new way of looking at the American Food Industry.
protein spikes insulin too, so are you recommending avoiding that?
and to your last point, if you are in a caloric surplus and just lower carbs and increase fat and are still in said surplus, you will not lose any additional fat, because caloric surplus.
actually, according to this - http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/index.php/free-content/free-content/volume-1-issue-7-insulin-and-thinking-better/insulin-an-undeserved-bad-reputation/ - they are about the same.
so please explain to me why the carb spike is bad but the protein spike is good?ForecasterJason wrote: »
His point was sugar spiking blood sugar, not protein. I know protein has been shown to raise insulin, but the real issue is high blood glucose leading to insulin resistance. And blood glucose won't be spiked as much from protein as from carbs.Sugar spikes blood sugar. Do that too often or too much, and insulin resistance results. Inflammation follows. When you are 100-110 lbs overweight for years like I was, IR is a big deal. Hitting 277 lbs and judged pre-diabetic by my doctor a year ago, suffering from joint pain and gum recession (inflammation), I made the decision to make the Big Change. Not only did I give up refined sugar, but also all grains (whole grains, especially wheat, spike blood sugar more than table sugar).
A year later, I have lost 50 lbs, have no joint or lower back pain, and gum recession has reversed. Increased energy, elevated mood. Most of my major improvements came in 2-3 weeks after eliminating all grains and grain products. Weight loss took longer. The program I followed is called "Wheat Belly."
Four months ago, I moved from WB to Nutritional Ketosis, or as I call it, WB+. I had plateaued my weight loss over several months. NK (not to be confused with Ketoacidosis, a dangerous condition in T1 diabetics) emphasizes very low carbs (<10-15 g), moderate protein (70-90 g), and higher fats (80% of calories +). It has broken my IR and I have been steadily losing since moving to NK. Hit my lowest weight in years yesterday. 50 lbs down, 60 to go.
MFP has been my best friend on WB and NK. The display of macros Carbs, Fats, Proteins makes computing the Ketogenic Ratio (how ketogenic any food or meal or day is) a snap. My only wish is that MFP add the KR calculator in its list of nutrients. It's a simple formula.
WB and NK has given me back my health at age 67. The USDA recommended "6-11 servings of whole grains" and "limited fats" is a recipe for obesity, diabetes, as well as providing a rich environment for cancers (love glucose) and dementia (oxidation in neurons). It is no wonder American obesity, diabetes, cancer, and dementia has grown exponentially since these food guidelines were first published in the 1970s.
I have no vested interested in WB or NK beyond being a grateful recipient of their pathway to health. You can read the stories of thousands (with pictures) at OfficialWheatBelly on Facebook. Or get the lowdown on NK from "Butter Bob" Briggs at website "ButterMakesYourPantsFallOff" or Jimmy Moore's excellent research summary in "Keto Clarity."
If you are having trouble losing weight . . . stalled at a certain point . . . simply lower carbs and raise healthy fats. Beyond that, check out these resources for a new way of looking at the American Food Industry.
protein spikes insulin too, so are you recommending avoiding that?
and to your last point, if you are in a caloric surplus and just lower carbs and increase fat and are still in said surplus, you will not lose any additional fat, because caloric surplus.
actually, according to this - http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/index.php/free-content/free-content/volume-1-issue-7-insulin-and-thinking-better/insulin-an-undeserved-bad-reputation/ - they are about the same.
so please explain to me why the carb spike is bad but the protein spike is good?
Beat me to it, I was going to post that research review.
All the "sugar is da debilz" people fail to realize (or ignore) the fact that protein creates a nearly identical BG spike to carbs. Then it creates a cognitive dissonance because it's been drummed into their heads that sugar is da debilz. Dogma can be a hard thing for some people to let go of, even in the face of science.
I didn't see anyone mention insulin spikes. I believe it was said that "sugar spikes blood sugar".
The people who keep going on about "sugar is da debilz" are not those who are trying to limit sugar for health reasons.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
His point was sugar spiking blood sugar, not protein. I know protein has been shown to raise insulin, but the real issue is high blood glucose leading to insulin resistance. And blood glucose won't be spiked as much from protein as from carbs.Sugar spikes blood sugar. Do that too often or too much, and insulin resistance results. Inflammation follows. When you are 100-110 lbs overweight for years like I was, IR is a big deal. Hitting 277 lbs and judged pre-diabetic by my doctor a year ago, suffering from joint pain and gum recession (inflammation), I made the decision to make the Big Change. Not only did I give up refined sugar, but also all grains (whole grains, especially wheat, spike blood sugar more than table sugar).
A year later, I have lost 50 lbs, have no joint or lower back pain, and gum recession has reversed. Increased energy, elevated mood. Most of my major improvements came in 2-3 weeks after eliminating all grains and grain products. Weight loss took longer. The program I followed is called "Wheat Belly."
Four months ago, I moved from WB to Nutritional Ketosis, or as I call it, WB+. I had plateaued my weight loss over several months. NK (not to be confused with Ketoacidosis, a dangerous condition in T1 diabetics) emphasizes very low carbs (<10-15 g), moderate protein (70-90 g), and higher fats (80% of calories +). It has broken my IR and I have been steadily losing since moving to NK. Hit my lowest weight in years yesterday. 50 lbs down, 60 to go.
MFP has been my best friend on WB and NK. The display of macros Carbs, Fats, Proteins makes computing the Ketogenic Ratio (how ketogenic any food or meal or day is) a snap. My only wish is that MFP add the KR calculator in its list of nutrients. It's a simple formula.
WB and NK has given me back my health at age 67. The USDA recommended "6-11 servings of whole grains" and "limited fats" is a recipe for obesity, diabetes, as well as providing a rich environment for cancers (love glucose) and dementia (oxidation in neurons). It is no wonder American obesity, diabetes, cancer, and dementia has grown exponentially since these food guidelines were first published in the 1970s.
I have no vested interested in WB or NK beyond being a grateful recipient of their pathway to health. You can read the stories of thousands (with pictures) at OfficialWheatBelly on Facebook. Or get the lowdown on NK from "Butter Bob" Briggs at website "ButterMakesYourPantsFallOff" or Jimmy Moore's excellent research summary in "Keto Clarity."
If you are having trouble losing weight . . . stalled at a certain point . . . simply lower carbs and raise healthy fats. Beyond that, check out these resources for a new way of looking at the American Food Industry.
protein spikes insulin too, so are you recommending avoiding that?
and to your last point, if you are in a caloric surplus and just lower carbs and increase fat and are still in said surplus, you will not lose any additional fat, because caloric surplus.
actually, according to this - http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/index.php/free-content/free-content/volume-1-issue-7-insulin-and-thinking-better/insulin-an-undeserved-bad-reputation/ - they are about the same.
so please explain to me why the carb spike is bad but the protein spike is good?
Beat me to it, I was going to post that research review.
All the "sugar is da debilz" people fail to realize (or ignore) the fact that protein creates a nearly identical BG spike to carbs. Then it creates a cognitive dissonance because it's been drummed into their heads that sugar is da debilz. Dogma can be a hard thing for some people to let go of, even in the face of science. Maybe next we'll be hearing that protein is da debilz.
i believe that will be the next scare once sugar is shown to be harmless..
episode five - the protein wars….0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »@lemurcat12
That report is a bit dated (2001). The last 15 years have brought about some interesting changes.
"Americans Are Finally Eating Less" - New York Times, July 24, 2015 There was a certain amount of tongue-in-cheek on my post.
Oh, I got that. Like I said, I liked it!
I think overall consumption is still way up vs. the 1980s and 1990s, though. And my bigger point was that we didn't actually adopt "low fat." We talked about it a lot and Snackwells made some $$, though.
Ugh, Snackwells. Disgusting memory. But people ate them up because they were said to be "healthier".0 -
"ForecasterJason wrote: »I look at it from the standpoint that a lot of people should reduce the amount of added sugar and salt in their diet, not that they need to cut it all out.
For sugar that is perhaps true. Perhaps. I don't know if you've ever tried to maintain a 1,500 mg sodium diet though. My family has, and it's really, really hard. It requires not only making everything from scratch, but eliminating entire food groups because they have too many naturally occurring mg of sodium. Obviously, processed meats are out, but so are all cheeses and cheese products. Ground beef has 60-70 mg / 3 oz serving.
1 egg has 170 mg sodium
1 cup of milk has 100 mg sodium
6 oz plain yogurt can have as much as 150 mg sodium
1 cup spinach has 125 mg sodium
It doesn't *look* like much, but the mg add up. And it gets worse the more calories you need; I'm not sure how a blanket recommendation of 1500 mg regardless of body mass or activity level will actually work out.
I watch my sodium relatively carefully, and try to stay around the recommended 2300. I have to be very careful because my mom's got kidney failure; so she needs to stay at the 1500 mg recommendation (and has for several years). The thing is, I "fail" all the the time, and so does she. I can generally keep her at between 1500-2000 mg daily, and I realistically run 1800-2300. While I avoid processed foods (oh how I miss thee, hard salami!) my mom winds up limiting everything I mentioned above (and more); cheese, milk, yogurt, meat, vegetables, based not on their calories but on their sodium content. Absolutely everything, every ingredient, is looked at carefully for sodium content and despite that, I still manage to go "over" budget on sodium regularly!
*Note: This is my actual sodium report from the period from October - January. Please be kind, there were holidays in there that took precedence to budgeted calories and salt for me.
There are two important things to notice from this graph
The more calories I ate, the higher my sodium was. This is not rocket science, but its really notable that I exceed 1500 mg sodium far more days than I exceed my allotted calories (appx. 1600). Getting under 1500 mg of sodium almost never happened. The days it did happen I was having a lot of trouble with lupus and not eating much at all. My experience is that 2300 mg is a reasonable goal, but it takes effort to meet and certainly wouldn't be possible for someone who ate out much. 1500 mg is a tough goal, and I can't imagine anyone who needs more than 1600 calories a day meeting that goal on a regular basis.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
His point was sugar spiking blood sugar, not protein. I know protein has been shown to raise insulin, but the real issue is high blood glucose leading to insulin resistance. And blood glucose won't be spiked as much from protein as from carbs.Sugar spikes blood sugar. Do that too often or too much, and insulin resistance results. Inflammation follows. When you are 100-110 lbs overweight for years like I was, IR is a big deal. Hitting 277 lbs and judged pre-diabetic by my doctor a year ago, suffering from joint pain and gum recession (inflammation), I made the decision to make the Big Change. Not only did I give up refined sugar, but also all grains (whole grains, especially wheat, spike blood sugar more than table sugar).
A year later, I have lost 50 lbs, have no joint or lower back pain, and gum recession has reversed. Increased energy, elevated mood. Most of my major improvements came in 2-3 weeks after eliminating all grains and grain products. Weight loss took longer. The program I followed is called "Wheat Belly."
Four months ago, I moved from WB to Nutritional Ketosis, or as I call it, WB+. I had plateaued my weight loss over several months. NK (not to be confused with Ketoacidosis, a dangerous condition in T1 diabetics) emphasizes very low carbs (<10-15 g), moderate protein (70-90 g), and higher fats (80% of calories +). It has broken my IR and I have been steadily losing since moving to NK. Hit my lowest weight in years yesterday. 50 lbs down, 60 to go.
MFP has been my best friend on WB and NK. The display of macros Carbs, Fats, Proteins makes computing the Ketogenic Ratio (how ketogenic any food or meal or day is) a snap. My only wish is that MFP add the KR calculator in its list of nutrients. It's a simple formula.
WB and NK has given me back my health at age 67. The USDA recommended "6-11 servings of whole grains" and "limited fats" is a recipe for obesity, diabetes, as well as providing a rich environment for cancers (love glucose) and dementia (oxidation in neurons). It is no wonder American obesity, diabetes, cancer, and dementia has grown exponentially since these food guidelines were first published in the 1970s.
I have no vested interested in WB or NK beyond being a grateful recipient of their pathway to health. You can read the stories of thousands (with pictures) at OfficialWheatBelly on Facebook. Or get the lowdown on NK from "Butter Bob" Briggs at website "ButterMakesYourPantsFallOff" or Jimmy Moore's excellent research summary in "Keto Clarity."
If you are having trouble losing weight . . . stalled at a certain point . . . simply lower carbs and raise healthy fats. Beyond that, check out these resources for a new way of looking at the American Food Industry.
protein spikes insulin too, so are you recommending avoiding that?
and to your last point, if you are in a caloric surplus and just lower carbs and increase fat and are still in said surplus, you will not lose any additional fat, because caloric surplus.
actually, according to this - http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/index.php/free-content/free-content/volume-1-issue-7-insulin-and-thinking-better/insulin-an-undeserved-bad-reputation/ - they are about the same.
so please explain to me why the carb spike is bad but the protein spike is good?ForecasterJason wrote: »
His point was sugar spiking blood sugar, not protein. I know protein has been shown to raise insulin, but the real issue is high blood glucose leading to insulin resistance. And blood glucose won't be spiked as much from protein as from carbs.Sugar spikes blood sugar. Do that too often or too much, and insulin resistance results. Inflammation follows. When you are 100-110 lbs overweight for years like I was, IR is a big deal. Hitting 277 lbs and judged pre-diabetic by my doctor a year ago, suffering from joint pain and gum recession (inflammation), I made the decision to make the Big Change. Not only did I give up refined sugar, but also all grains (whole grains, especially wheat, spike blood sugar more than table sugar).
A year later, I have lost 50 lbs, have no joint or lower back pain, and gum recession has reversed. Increased energy, elevated mood. Most of my major improvements came in 2-3 weeks after eliminating all grains and grain products. Weight loss took longer. The program I followed is called "Wheat Belly."
Four months ago, I moved from WB to Nutritional Ketosis, or as I call it, WB+. I had plateaued my weight loss over several months. NK (not to be confused with Ketoacidosis, a dangerous condition in T1 diabetics) emphasizes very low carbs (<10-15 g), moderate protein (70-90 g), and higher fats (80% of calories +). It has broken my IR and I have been steadily losing since moving to NK. Hit my lowest weight in years yesterday. 50 lbs down, 60 to go.
MFP has been my best friend on WB and NK. The display of macros Carbs, Fats, Proteins makes computing the Ketogenic Ratio (how ketogenic any food or meal or day is) a snap. My only wish is that MFP add the KR calculator in its list of nutrients. It's a simple formula.
WB and NK has given me back my health at age 67. The USDA recommended "6-11 servings of whole grains" and "limited fats" is a recipe for obesity, diabetes, as well as providing a rich environment for cancers (love glucose) and dementia (oxidation in neurons). It is no wonder American obesity, diabetes, cancer, and dementia has grown exponentially since these food guidelines were first published in the 1970s.
I have no vested interested in WB or NK beyond being a grateful recipient of their pathway to health. You can read the stories of thousands (with pictures) at OfficialWheatBelly on Facebook. Or get the lowdown on NK from "Butter Bob" Briggs at website "ButterMakesYourPantsFallOff" or Jimmy Moore's excellent research summary in "Keto Clarity."
If you are having trouble losing weight . . . stalled at a certain point . . . simply lower carbs and raise healthy fats. Beyond that, check out these resources for a new way of looking at the American Food Industry.
protein spikes insulin too, so are you recommending avoiding that?
and to your last point, if you are in a caloric surplus and just lower carbs and increase fat and are still in said surplus, you will not lose any additional fat, because caloric surplus.
actually, according to this - http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/index.php/free-content/free-content/volume-1-issue-7-insulin-and-thinking-better/insulin-an-undeserved-bad-reputation/ - they are about the same.
so please explain to me why the carb spike is bad but the protein spike is good?
Beat me to it, I was going to post that research review.
All the "sugar is da debilz" people fail to realize (or ignore) the fact that protein creates a nearly identical BG spike to carbs. Then it creates a cognitive dissonance because it's been drummed into their heads that sugar is da debilz. Dogma can be a hard thing for some people to let go of, even in the face of science.
I didn't see anyone mention insulin spikes. I believe it was said that "sugar spikes blood sugar".
The people who keep going on about "sugar is da debilz" are not those who are trying to limit sugar for health reasons.
forecaster did and the person I quoted also mentioned it…
your last statement is not accurate.0 -
I find it easier to stick to my calorie macros for weight loss if I don't eat foods without added sugar or high sugar fruits. I feel fuller and more satisfied if my calories come from protein, fat and lower carbs and fewer cravings. I've discovered this through modifying my macros. Just easier to say no and not worry about it. But to each there own path to success. So funny that some people think we are all the same. Some pople too fine with eating limited amounts of sugary things. So try and figure out what Macros works best for you to stick with you calorie goal for weight loss0
-
The title of this thread is Maybe Sugar Is the Devil. It is about the US Dietary recommendations. While many people mocked the idea that sugar is the devil (because it should be mocked), I don't think anyone really objected to the idea that not consuming insane amounts of added sugar is a good idea (I think most of us tended to find the US gov't recommendation reasonable enough). Significantly, the US recs -- like the WHO recs -- don't actually say that people need to eliminate added sugar to have a healthful diet. Those who came in here to recommend that are probably off topic. I mean, do whatever you want, but if you want to argue the US guidelines should eliminate added sugar (as someone did), give a better reason than we've seen so far.
As for people's individual diets, not the topic of the thread, obviously do what you like.
As for the claim that people wanting to limit added sugar don't claim that sugar is the devil: It was tongue-in-cheek, but I think OP is among those who think consumption of added sugar ought to be limited (as am I, actually, although I think it is absurd or worse to seriously assert "sugar is the devil" as many people claiming they have issues of control re sugar have at MFP).0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
His point was sugar spiking blood sugar, not protein. I know protein has been shown to raise insulin, but the real issue is high blood glucose leading to insulin resistance. And blood glucose won't be spiked as much from protein as from carbs.Sugar spikes blood sugar. Do that too often or too much, and insulin resistance results. Inflammation follows. When you are 100-110 lbs overweight for years like I was, IR is a big deal. Hitting 277 lbs and judged pre-diabetic by my doctor a year ago, suffering from joint pain and gum recession (inflammation), I made the decision to make the Big Change. Not only did I give up refined sugar, but also all grains (whole grains, especially wheat, spike blood sugar more than table sugar).
A year later, I have lost 50 lbs, have no joint or lower back pain, and gum recession has reversed. Increased energy, elevated mood. Most of my major improvements came in 2-3 weeks after eliminating all grains and grain products. Weight loss took longer. The program I followed is called "Wheat Belly."
Four months ago, I moved from WB to Nutritional Ketosis, or as I call it, WB+. I had plateaued my weight loss over several months. NK (not to be confused with Ketoacidosis, a dangerous condition in T1 diabetics) emphasizes very low carbs (<10-15 g), moderate protein (70-90 g), and higher fats (80% of calories +). It has broken my IR and I have been steadily losing since moving to NK. Hit my lowest weight in years yesterday. 50 lbs down, 60 to go.
MFP has been my best friend on WB and NK. The display of macros Carbs, Fats, Proteins makes computing the Ketogenic Ratio (how ketogenic any food or meal or day is) a snap. My only wish is that MFP add the KR calculator in its list of nutrients. It's a simple formula.
WB and NK has given me back my health at age 67. The USDA recommended "6-11 servings of whole grains" and "limited fats" is a recipe for obesity, diabetes, as well as providing a rich environment for cancers (love glucose) and dementia (oxidation in neurons). It is no wonder American obesity, diabetes, cancer, and dementia has grown exponentially since these food guidelines were first published in the 1970s.
I have no vested interested in WB or NK beyond being a grateful recipient of their pathway to health. You can read the stories of thousands (with pictures) at OfficialWheatBelly on Facebook. Or get the lowdown on NK from "Butter Bob" Briggs at website "ButterMakesYourPantsFallOff" or Jimmy Moore's excellent research summary in "Keto Clarity."
If you are having trouble losing weight . . . stalled at a certain point . . . simply lower carbs and raise healthy fats. Beyond that, check out these resources for a new way of looking at the American Food Industry.
protein spikes insulin too, so are you recommending avoiding that?
and to your last point, if you are in a caloric surplus and just lower carbs and increase fat and are still in said surplus, you will not lose any additional fat, because caloric surplus.
actually, according to this - http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/index.php/free-content/free-content/volume-1-issue-7-insulin-and-thinking-better/insulin-an-undeserved-bad-reputation/ - they are about the same.
so please explain to me why the carb spike is bad but the protein spike is good?ForecasterJason wrote: »
His point was sugar spiking blood sugar, not protein. I know protein has been shown to raise insulin, but the real issue is high blood glucose leading to insulin resistance. And blood glucose won't be spiked as much from protein as from carbs.Sugar spikes blood sugar. Do that too often or too much, and insulin resistance results. Inflammation follows. When you are 100-110 lbs overweight for years like I was, IR is a big deal. Hitting 277 lbs and judged pre-diabetic by my doctor a year ago, suffering from joint pain and gum recession (inflammation), I made the decision to make the Big Change. Not only did I give up refined sugar, but also all grains (whole grains, especially wheat, spike blood sugar more than table sugar).
A year later, I have lost 50 lbs, have no joint or lower back pain, and gum recession has reversed. Increased energy, elevated mood. Most of my major improvements came in 2-3 weeks after eliminating all grains and grain products. Weight loss took longer. The program I followed is called "Wheat Belly."
Four months ago, I moved from WB to Nutritional Ketosis, or as I call it, WB+. I had plateaued my weight loss over several months. NK (not to be confused with Ketoacidosis, a dangerous condition in T1 diabetics) emphasizes very low carbs (<10-15 g), moderate protein (70-90 g), and higher fats (80% of calories +). It has broken my IR and I have been steadily losing since moving to NK. Hit my lowest weight in years yesterday. 50 lbs down, 60 to go.
MFP has been my best friend on WB and NK. The display of macros Carbs, Fats, Proteins makes computing the Ketogenic Ratio (how ketogenic any food or meal or day is) a snap. My only wish is that MFP add the KR calculator in its list of nutrients. It's a simple formula.
WB and NK has given me back my health at age 67. The USDA recommended "6-11 servings of whole grains" and "limited fats" is a recipe for obesity, diabetes, as well as providing a rich environment for cancers (love glucose) and dementia (oxidation in neurons). It is no wonder American obesity, diabetes, cancer, and dementia has grown exponentially since these food guidelines were first published in the 1970s.
I have no vested interested in WB or NK beyond being a grateful recipient of their pathway to health. You can read the stories of thousands (with pictures) at OfficialWheatBelly on Facebook. Or get the lowdown on NK from "Butter Bob" Briggs at website "ButterMakesYourPantsFallOff" or Jimmy Moore's excellent research summary in "Keto Clarity."
If you are having trouble losing weight . . . stalled at a certain point . . . simply lower carbs and raise healthy fats. Beyond that, check out these resources for a new way of looking at the American Food Industry.
protein spikes insulin too, so are you recommending avoiding that?
and to your last point, if you are in a caloric surplus and just lower carbs and increase fat and are still in said surplus, you will not lose any additional fat, because caloric surplus.
actually, according to this - http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/index.php/free-content/free-content/volume-1-issue-7-insulin-and-thinking-better/insulin-an-undeserved-bad-reputation/ - they are about the same.
so please explain to me why the carb spike is bad but the protein spike is good?
Beat me to it, I was going to post that research review.
All the "sugar is da debilz" people fail to realize (or ignore) the fact that protein creates a nearly identical BG spike to carbs. Then it creates a cognitive dissonance because it's been drummed into their heads that sugar is da debilz. Dogma can be a hard thing for some people to let go of, even in the face of science.
I didn't see anyone mention insulin spikes. I believe it was said that "sugar spikes blood sugar".
The people who keep going on about "sugar is da debilz" are not those who are trying to limit sugar for health reasons.
forecaster did and the person I quoted also mentioned it…
your last statement is not accurate.
I haven't seen that, and I disagree with your last statement.
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 agree with you... for people who count calories and read labels. Lots of folks don't, though. How many new MFPers say they tried "eating clean" before actually counting calories? I imagine that caution is aimed at the people who think salad=weight loss and proceed to order salads with fried chicken tenders, candied walnuts, tons o dressing, and a big ol buttery breadstick. I have witnessed this "salad" disconnect first hand many times. I also agree with you that the salad dressing calories matter more than its sugar content, except perhaps, for diabetics.0 -
A year ago, there would be cat gifs by now...
...oh for the glory days...0 -
One of those charts show that the carbs spike BG more than protein, which is exactly what I was saying.ForecasterJason wrote: »
His point was sugar spiking blood sugar, not protein. I know protein has been shown to raise insulin, but the real issue is high blood glucose leading to insulin resistance. And blood glucose won't be spiked as much from protein as from carbs.Sugar spikes blood sugar. Do that too often or too much, and insulin resistance results. Inflammation follows. When you are 100-110 lbs overweight for years like I was, IR is a big deal. Hitting 277 lbs and judged pre-diabetic by my doctor a year ago, suffering from joint pain and gum recession (inflammation), I made the decision to make the Big Change. Not only did I give up refined sugar, but also all grains (whole grains, especially wheat, spike blood sugar more than table sugar).
A year later, I have lost 50 lbs, have no joint or lower back pain, and gum recession has reversed. Increased energy, elevated mood. Most of my major improvements came in 2-3 weeks after eliminating all grains and grain products. Weight loss took longer. The program I followed is called "Wheat Belly."
Four months ago, I moved from WB to Nutritional Ketosis, or as I call it, WB+. I had plateaued my weight loss over several months. NK (not to be confused with Ketoacidosis, a dangerous condition in T1 diabetics) emphasizes very low carbs (<10-15 g), moderate protein (70-90 g), and higher fats (80% of calories +). It has broken my IR and I have been steadily losing since moving to NK. Hit my lowest weight in years yesterday. 50 lbs down, 60 to go.
MFP has been my best friend on WB and NK. The display of macros Carbs, Fats, Proteins makes computing the Ketogenic Ratio (how ketogenic any food or meal or day is) a snap. My only wish is that MFP add the KR calculator in its list of nutrients. It's a simple formula.
WB and NK has given me back my health at age 67. The USDA recommended "6-11 servings of whole grains" and "limited fats" is a recipe for obesity, diabetes, as well as providing a rich environment for cancers (love glucose) and dementia (oxidation in neurons). It is no wonder American obesity, diabetes, cancer, and dementia has grown exponentially since these food guidelines were first published in the 1970s.
I have no vested interested in WB or NK beyond being a grateful recipient of their pathway to health. You can read the stories of thousands (with pictures) at OfficialWheatBelly on Facebook. Or get the lowdown on NK from "Butter Bob" Briggs at website "ButterMakesYourPantsFallOff" or Jimmy Moore's excellent research summary in "Keto Clarity."
If you are having trouble losing weight . . . stalled at a certain point . . . simply lower carbs and raise healthy fats. Beyond that, check out these resources for a new way of looking at the American Food Industry.
protein spikes insulin too, so are you recommending avoiding that?
and to your last point, if you are in a caloric surplus and just lower carbs and increase fat and are still in said surplus, you will not lose any additional fat, because caloric surplus.
actually, according to this - http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/index.php/free-content/free-content/volume-1-issue-7-insulin-and-thinking-better/insulin-an-undeserved-bad-reputation/ - they are about the same.
so please explain to me why the carb spike is bad but the protein spike is good?
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 agree with you... for people who count calories and read labels. Lots of folks don't, though. How many new MFPers say they tried "eating clean" before actually counting calories? I imagine that caution is aimed at the people who think salad=weight loss and proceed to order salads with fried chicken tenders, candied walnuts, tons o dressing, and a big ol buttery breadstick. I have witnessed this "salad" disconnect first hand many times. I also agree with you that the salad dressing calories matter more than its sugar content, except perhaps, for diabetics.
Possibly. I just think it's one of those things that people are so in the habit of saying, they never bothered to think about if it makes sense or not...
Also that salad sounds delicious.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »The title of this thread is Maybe Sugar Is the Devil. It is about the US Dietary recommendations. While many people mocked the idea that sugar is the devil (because it should be mocked), I don't think anyone really objected to the idea that not consuming insane amounts of added sugar is a good idea (I think most of us tended to find the US gov't recommendation reasonable enough). Significantly, the US recs -- like the WHO recs -- don't actually say that people need to eliminate added sugar to have a healthful diet. Those who came in here to recommend that are probably off topic. I mean, do whatever you want, but if you want to argue the US guidelines should eliminate added sugar (as someone did), give a better reason than we've seen so far.
As for people's individual diets, not the topic of the thread, obviously do what you like.
As for the claim that people wanting to limit added sugar don't claim that sugar is the devil: It was tongue-in-cheek, but I think OP is among those who think consumption of added sugar ought to be limited (as am I, actually, although I think it is absurd or worse to seriously assert "sugar is the devil" as many people claiming they have issues of control re sugar have at MFP).
As the OP, those would be my thoughts.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions