Maybe Sugar IS the Devil - US Goverment Diet Recommendations
Replies
-
Yeah, I do agree the sodium target is definitely harder, especially trying to stay under 1500 mg. I usually wind up less than 2300 mg, and it helps that a lot of the foods I eat are made from scratch. And like you mentioned, the more calories you need, the harder it is. If my maintenance calories were around 1700-1900, it probably wouldn't be that difficult for me to stay under 1500mg, but I need about 2500 calories. Eventually though, I may be forced to since I am genetically at risk for high blood pressure."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.
That being said, 2300 is still drastically lower than the current average intake, particularly intake among males.
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.
Except it is called insulin resistance, not "insulin not responding to glucose". Glucose alone doesn't cause insulin resistance, nor even just protein. Epidemiological data demonstrates that high levels of saturated fat are associated with it.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….
Something, something great minds:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10184578/how-little-protein0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »Yeah, I do agree the sodium target is definitely harder, especially trying to stay under 1500 mg. I usually wind up less than 2300 mg, and it helps that a lot of the foods I eat are made from scratch. And like you mentioned, the more calories you need, the harder it is. If my maintenance calories were around 1700-1900, it probably wouldn't be that difficult for me to stay under 1500mg, but I need about 2500 calories. Eventually though, I may be forced to since I am genetically at risk for high blood pressure.
That being said, 2300 is still drastically lower than the current average intake, particularly intake among males.
Take heart! My dad was on blood pressure pills for 15 years when I moved home to take care of mom. I took control of all of our diets. He eats about 2000 calories / day (6'2", 60 y.o.) and his sodium intake runs right around 2300 mg on average. Within one month of the moderate-sodium diet, he no longer needed the blood pressure pills. His cholesterol levels have also dropped significantly so that they are no longer of great concern either. Obviously, case study 1 of 1 but ... we're seeing a definite improvement from modest changes, which is encouraging to me.0 -
The average American diet as is contains too much added sugar and too many over processed carbs. So, yeah, it's not the devil, but moderation is definitely key.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….
Something, something great minds:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10184578/how-little-protein
You should know better than that. That's humor. Weight loss is serious business.0 -
I get that, but statistical associations don't always hold true in all cases. Recent blood tests have revealed that I do have BG levels that are too high, and I feel confident that it's not because I'm eating too much saturated fat (I don't eat that much). But I do know that my diet has had generous amounts of carbs, and I think it's reasonable to assume that at times it's probably been too many for my body to handle at once.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.
Except it is called insulin resistance, not "insulin not responding to glucose". Glucose alone doesn't cause insulin resistance, nor even just protein. Epidemiological data demonstrates that high levels of saturated fat are associated with it.
0 -
-
snowflake930 wrote: »NO, just NO.
You need sugar.
Moderation in all things.
Overindulging in any food can be bad for you.
In all fairness, cutting out, or at the very least cutting back, on sugary drinks, and that includes juice, is probably not a bad idea, but trying to cut out all sugar, is a bad idea, and not possible or even healthy.
yikes. Please reread the science on nutritional needs. You do not require sugar.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
I get that, but statistical associations don't always hold true in all cases. Recent blood tests have revealed that I do have BG levels that are too high, and I feel confident that it's not because I'm eating too much saturated fat (I don't eat that much). But I do know that my diet has had generous amounts of carbs, and I think it's reasonable to assume that at times it's probably been too many for my body to handle at once.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.
Except it is called insulin resistance, not "insulin not responding to glucose". Glucose alone doesn't cause insulin resistance, nor even just protein. Epidemiological data demonstrates that high levels of saturated fat are associated with it.
unless you have had a doctor diagnosis you as having a medical condition then you can't think that you have said condition, And "feels" don't count as a self diagnosis.0 -
markrgeary1 wrote: »Isn't this the same as what WHO advised?
I think WHO went as low as 5% added sugar. I have a diet with very few packaged goods (No "clean eating" philosophy behind it. Just cultural) and it is quite easy to not eat too much added sugar this way.
I like how they (USDA, WHO) emphasize to not limit naturally occurring sugars and people kind of ignore them and cut out fruits and starches0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »It is unreal how much sugar we use today.
We? I think it's pretty clear that you can't generalize.
I didn't eat large amounts of sugar when getting fat. It wasn't something I grew up with or adopted. I did eat some added sugar, because sugar (combined with fat and other things) is often part of a tasty pie or cookie or ice cream or even rhubarb sauce and not evil. Never been insulin resistant, never had other diet-related health issues, lost the weight eating as many carbs as I wanted and never once drinking lots of oil or butter in some coffee (plus, coffee tastes best black).
Take the "we" as in "we as a society". Just because YOU personally don't doesn't make it less unreal
If you buy packaged goods look at the sugar added to random foods : ketchup is an obvious example, dressings, some savory snacks, coleslaw mentioned by @GaleHawkins
I don't eat a lot of sugar. I strongly don't have anything against sugar either. I don't even track it on MFP tbh.0 -
juggernaut1974 wrote: »
I think I'm gonna go buy the web domain wateristhedevil.com now while I still can
Yes off course!Water! It is the main ingredient in sugary drinks and in fruits! People have been knowned to die from too much of it. Eliminate, eliminate, eliminate!
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »It is unreal how much sugar we use today.
We? I think it's pretty clear that you can't generalize.
I didn't eat large amounts of sugar when getting fat. It wasn't something I grew up with or adopted. I did eat some added sugar, because sugar (combined with fat and other things) is often part of a tasty pie or cookie or ice cream or even rhubarb sauce and not evil. Never been insulin resistant, never had other diet-related health issues, lost the weight eating as many carbs as I wanted and never once drinking lots of oil or butter in some coffee (plus, coffee tastes best black).
Take the "we" as in "we as a society". Just because YOU personally don't doesn't make it less unreal
Sure, but NOTHING Gale says seems representative of anyone else, let alone the country as a whole or my particular subculture.
People can obviously choose to eat lots of sugar, but no, sugar is not in everything. And if you eat mostly whole foods it's in what you'd expect -- fruit, veg, sweet potatoes, plantains, etc.If you buy packaged goods look at the sugar added to random foods : ketchup is an obvious example, dressings, some savory snacks, coleslaw mentioned by @GaleHawkins
I don't buy packaged stuff with added sugar other than smoked salmon and sriracha (it's negligible) -- (I loathe ketchup and honey mustard, and make my own cole slaw and pasta sauce).I don't eat a lot of sugar. I strongly don't have anything against sugar either. I don't even track it on MFP tbh.
Okay, so we agree, right? Gale is trying to speak for everyone else weirdly when he can't.0 -
TL;DR. Sugar isn't bad. Eating too much sugar is.0
-
Also please cite a source on your claim that zero carbs are required for good health....
The US Institutes of Medicine were unable to identify a minimum requirement for carbohydrates, or an optimum. https://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/DRI/DRI_Energy/energy_full_report.pdf p275.0 -
so please explain to me why the carb spike is bad but the protein spike is good?
Protein - a necessary food, increases insulin somewhat, doesn't increase blood glucose.
Carbs - an optional food, increases insulin significantly, elevates blood glucose.
Neither hyperglycaemia nor hyperinsulinemia are conditions without concern, so eating enough protein (not silly brotein levels) which is essential makes sense, eating carbs is optional.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »It is unreal how much sugar we use today.
We? I think it's pretty clear that you can't generalize.
I didn't eat large amounts of sugar when getting fat. It wasn't something I grew up with or adopted. I did eat some added sugar, because sugar (combined with fat and other things) is often part of a tasty pie or cookie or ice cream or even rhubarb sauce and not evil. Never been insulin resistant, never had other diet-related health issues, lost the weight eating as many carbs as I wanted and never once drinking lots of oil or butter in some coffee (plus, coffee tastes best black).
Take the "we" as in "we as a society". Just because YOU personally don't doesn't make it less unreal
If you buy packaged goods look at the sugar added to random foods : ketchup is an obvious example, dressings, some savory snacks, coleslaw mentioned by @GaleHawkins
I don't eat a lot of sugar. I strongly don't have anything against sugar either. I don't even track it on MFP tbh.
I asked this above. Why, if I don't have a medical reason to restrict sugar, do I need to be wary of sugar added to packaged foods? I used Kraft Ranch dressing as an example above. It has 1 g of Sugar and 110 calories. The article being discussed says to keep to no more than 10% of calorie intake. I'm maintaining at about 2100 cals/day. That's an awful lot of ranch dressing....0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »I asked this above. Why, if I don't have a medical reason to restrict sugar, do I need to be wary of sugar added to packaged foods? I used Kraft Ranch dressing as an example above. It has 1 g of Sugar and 110 calories. The article being discussed says to keep to no more than 10% of calorie intake. I'm maintaining at about 2100 cals/day. That's an awful lot of ranch dressing....
You are asking a question in a context that may prevent you seeing the answer.
To me you appear to be saying "I don't believe sugar is any different to any other form of calorific nutrition and therefore I see no reason to limit it". Which is fair enough, that's your opinion and that of others too.
The proponents of limits to sugar consumption presumably see it differently, but as they diverge from your position at the first step - ie they believe sugar is different - then you can't have a conversation about it.
It's like saying - given I know the world is round/flat* I don't understand these people who say it's flat/round*. Of course you don't, because you believe something different. *Delete where not applicable.0 -
Also please cite a source on your claim that zero carbs are required for good health....
The US Institutes of Medicine were unable to identify a minimum requirement for carbohydrates, or an optimum. https://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/DRI/DRI_Energy/energy_full_report.pdf p275.
that was not my question ..
0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »I asked this above. Why, if I don't have a medical reason to restrict sugar, do I need to be wary of sugar added to packaged foods? I used Kraft Ranch dressing as an example above. It has 1 g of Sugar and 110 calories. The article being discussed says to keep to no more than 10% of calorie intake. I'm maintaining at about 2100 cals/day. That's an awful lot of ranch dressing....
You are asking a question in a context that may prevent you seeing the answer.
To me you appear to be saying "I don't believe sugar is any different to any other form of calorific nutrition and therefore I see no reason to limit it". Which is fair enough, that's your opinion and that of others too.
The proponents of limits to sugar consumption presumably see it differently, but as they diverge from your position at the first step - ie they believe sugar is different - then you can't have a conversation about it.
It's like saying - given I know the world is round/flat* I don't understand these people who say it's flat/round*. Of course you don't, because you believe something different. *Delete where not applicable.
I didn't say that I see no reason to limit it. I've said in this thread and others, if someone has a medical diagnosis to limit sugars, they certainly should, and for weight loss, reducing calorie dense foods (which sugary foods often can be) can be a good way to help achieve that calorie deficit. I'm think the levels recommended in the article are reasonable although I don't think that means sugar should be called the devil.
What I'm trying to understand why people always refer to the hidden sugars in packaged foods such as ketchup and salad dressing as being something to watch out for. Is it simply "watch out" as in "don't forget to count it" if you're counting? Or is it "watch out" because "sugar bad unless it comes from fruit". That's what I'm trying to understand. It's not confirmation bias.
0 -
Also please cite a source on your claim that zero carbs are required for good health....
The US Institutes of Medicine were unable to identify a minimum requirement for carbohydrates, or an optimum. https://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/DRI/DRI_Energy/energy_full_report.pdf p275.
that was not my question ..
you asked for evidence. They couldn't find any, so I'm not trying.0 -
I think there's a myth that people eat loads of calories from sugar "hidden" in foods they don't expect. It's similar to the idea that people gobbled down Snackwells thinking they were low cal and health-promoting (as opposed to just sad-sounding). It's also self-serving (and promoted by Katie Couric and Lustig, etc.), because of course it's nicer* to think that you were tricked by BigFood into becoming fat rather than you chose to eat lots of obviously high cal foods, even if all BigFood foods have labels, of course.
When it comes to something like ketchup or ranch dressing, it's silly, the calories from sugar are tiny (and even as a ketchup hater I don't get people claiming to be ignorant of the fact there's sugar in ketchup -- it's sweet!). It's more true if you look at how calories in things like sweetened cereal increased over the years, but again you'd have to be engaged in a serious self-delusion project to claim that the sugar in cereal is "hidden" even apart from the label.
So I personally agree with you. People with health issues of course may find that there's more sugar in things than they realized and be frustrated. I doubt people really eat huge amounts of calories from "hidden" sugars, though -- and the claim that half of sugar comes from soda, etc. (SO not hidden) seems to back that up.
*Nicer for some. I'd rather admit I overate than claim to be too stupid to read a label, personally.0 -
Also please cite a source on your claim that zero carbs are required for good health....
The US Institutes of Medicine were unable to identify a minimum requirement for carbohydrates, or an optimum. https://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/DRI/DRI_Energy/energy_full_report.pdf p275.
that was not my question ..
you asked for evidence. They couldn't find any, so I'm not trying.
I asked that poster to support their statement that zero carbs are required for good health …your "study" does not appear to address that and I did not ask about minimum requirements.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »I asked this above. Why, if I don't have a medical reason to restrict sugar, do I need to be wary of sugar added to packaged foods? I used Kraft Ranch dressing as an example above. It has 1 g of Sugar and 110 calories. The article being discussed says to keep to no more than 10% of calorie intake. I'm maintaining at about 2100 cals/day. That's an awful lot of ranch dressing....
You are asking a question in a context that may prevent you seeing the answer.
To me you appear to be saying "I don't believe sugar is any different to any other form of calorific nutrition and therefore I see no reason to limit it". Which is fair enough, that's your opinion and that of others too.
The proponents of limits to sugar consumption presumably see it differently, but as they diverge from your position at the first step - ie they believe sugar is different - then you can't have a conversation about it.
It's like saying - given I know the world is round/flat* I don't understand these people who say it's flat/round*. Of course you don't, because you believe something different. *Delete where not applicable.
I didn't say that I see no reason to limit it. I've said in this thread and others, if someone has a medical diagnosis to limit sugars, they certainly should, and for weight loss, reducing calorie dense foods (which sugary foods often can be) can be a good way to help achieve that calorie deficit. I'm think the levels recommended in the article are reasonable although I don't think that means sugar should be called the devil.
What I'm trying to understand why people always refer to the hidden sugars in packaged foods such as ketchup and salad dressing as being something to watch out for. Is it simply "watch out" as in "don't forget to count it" if you're counting? Or is it "watch out" because "sugar bad unless it comes from fruit". That's what I'm trying to understand. It's not confirmation bias.
I bolded the confirmation bias evident in your question, but moving on from that....
The lobby against "added sugars" believes that sugar added in processing is inherently bad, and it is that they are flagging up in things which perhpas need not contain any sugar, or in their view be expected to contain any. So despite the ingredients list making it clear to the literate, these lobbies bang on about "hidden sugars" as they believe them to be unnecessary.
So I think it is mainly look out for it and don't forget to count it, although the people making a fuss about that probably have zero as their target for added sugars.0 -
Also please cite a source on your claim that zero carbs are required for good health....
The US Institutes of Medicine were unable to identify a minimum requirement for carbohydrates, or an optimum. https://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/DRI/DRI_Energy/energy_full_report.pdf p275.
But not identifying a minimum or an optimum level doesn't mean there aren't health benefits from carbs. I would highly doubt anyone would argue that carbs are bad, especially considering the amount of vitamins and minerals you get from veggies and fruits (not even adding that fiber supports a healthy GI system).WinoGelato wrote: »
I asked this above. Why, if I don't have a medical reason to restrict sugar, do I need to be wary of sugar added to packaged foods? I used Kraft Ranch dressing as an example above. It has 1 g of Sugar and 110 calories. The article being discussed says to keep to no more than 10% of calorie intake. I'm maintaining at about 2100 cals/day. That's an awful lot of ranch dressing....
Taking your case of 2100 calories, that means you would limit added sugars to 210 calories or roughly 52.5grams. That isn't a bad number to shoot for, as eating a lot more than that and you will probably be taking away from other beneficial nutrients (like protein). But even if you do go over, it doesn't mean you will be unhealthy.
Ultimately, this isn't really for those of us on MFP, as many of us are making the decision to eat more nutrient dense foods and limit calorie intake. And while I don't limit added sugar, I prioritize the foods I eat to get higher volume and more nutrients to ensure I address my needs.
edit: holy crap grammar is hard0 -
Also please cite a source on your claim that zero carbs are required for good health....
The US Institutes of Medicine were unable to identify a minimum requirement for carbohydrates, or an optimum. https://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/DRI/DRI_Energy/energy_full_report.pdf p275.
that was not my question ..
you asked for evidence. They couldn't find any, so I'm not trying.
I asked that poster to support their statement that zero carbs are required for good health …your "study" does not appear to address that and I did not ask about minimum requirements.
a) it isn't a study, it's an expert report rather than randoms on the internet
b) it addressed the question of an optimum - it disagrees with the idea that zero are optimal because it couldn't identify an optimum - be it zero or another number.
Did the statement mean "there are no carbs that are required for good health" or "for good health you require zero carbohydrate intake" I wonder.0 -
It's not nearly the same thing to say that "optimium is zero" when an expert panel cannot agree on a minimum.0
-
Also please cite a source on your claim that zero carbs are required for good health....
The US Institutes of Medicine were unable to identify a minimum requirement for carbohydrates, or an optimum. https://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/DRI/DRI_Energy/energy_full_report.pdf p275.
that was not my question ..
you asked for evidence. They couldn't find any, so I'm not trying.
I asked that poster to support their statement that zero carbs are required for good health …your "study" does not appear to address that and I did not ask about minimum requirements.
There are actually two statements.. 1. Are cabs necessary (maybe because I have seen some research that suggest some level of carbs is required. I believe @stevecloser posted it previously) and 2. Are the required for good health. The latter, I think many of us would agree that carbs are beneficial as veggies/carbs have a lot of nutrients that support health.0 -
Its really SAD to see (with all the information available today just a few clicks away) that some people still try to convince themselves that sugar can be good for you. There is absolutely nothing good about sugar in any form, we can tolerate loads of sugar yes, glucose is after all "biological fuel" but we should not be eating anything at all with sugar on the ingredients list.
This is the food industry that has been cleverly programming society for years and has got us all hooked on the stuff, all they need to do is keep adding sugar to all their new products and keep us addicted so we can keep buying more of their crap products, happy to say I'm 5 years clean, Had a few relapses perhaps every now and then (cough cough Christmas cough cough) but I know I'm never gonna be a full on addict ever again. Good luck to all of you.
I Vote for Banning Sugar!
http://www.naturalnews.com/047495_sugar_saccharin_addiction.html0
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