We Can Blame Sugar All We Like – But We're Only Creating More Problems For Ourselves
Options
Replies
-
_Terrapin_ wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Pollywog_la wrote: »What bad thing will happen if added/excess sugar is removed from the modern diet? Answer...nothing.
Nothing bad will happen if people stop eating sugary cereals, or candy. Still plenty of sugars in natural foods.
Comparing it with the fat-scare is unfair. Humans actually NEED fat.
Low fat never said no fat (there's naturally-occurring fat in whole foods too, like nuts, meat (including fatty fish), avocado, olives) -- you don't need to get fat from sweets or packaged foods or fast food, etc., or even lots of sat fat from dairy or fattier cuts of meat to live. In fact, we are still recommended to limit those things. So it's the same.
And of course we do need sugar to live -- it's just that it's so incredibly important our bodies can create it from other things. That there are people who worry about whether they should reduce or limit their consumption of fruits and even vegetables because "sugar" shows that we've gone overboard, as usual, since it's easier to blame a macro than learn to eat in a sensible way that focuses on nutrient dense foods. Well, not easier, but apparently sexier -- there's more money to be made promoting this line. Apparently we are now doing the reverse of the Snackwell's thing -- making "no sugar" products that have extra fat and sodium and calories. People want a magic bullet.
As for your question, I am in favor of people eating fewer foods with lots of sugar added. I don't eat sugary cereal or candy myself (well, I don't like either), and I eat the foods with added sugar that I like (such as ice cream) in moderation. But wanting those foods removed from the food supply seems extreme. Why should they be, when many enjoy them and the correct answer is not to eat stupidly.
No one said that but you.
On the other side, let's not pretend that added sugar is some kind of required or necessary nutrient. Added sugar is pretty much something that we eat for fun, not nutritional needs. It is completely expendable with zero negative effects.
I eat alligator for fun....and the wooden stick. What food do you eat and think 'I need the nutrient specific to this food item'? I get the idea it isn't necessary but I enjoy it and need energy. If we outlawed soda for example, could you imagine the bottling companies believing people would buy bottled water? Oh wait.
Most of what I chose to eat is chosen for its contribution to micronutrients that I have a hard time getting enough of. I'm not perfect, but am trying to get nutrients from food itself. It takes work to find affordable, nutritious, tasty food that fulfills daily needs. I don't understand promoting added sugar as food - it promotes overeating and/or 'under-nutritioning'.
because there is nothing wrong with added sugar in the context of an overall diet that hits micro, macro, and calorie targets…..but you don't want to acknowledge that, do you?
Our perspectives are so different. It does not look like you are sedentary or eating at a deficit or eating more calories than you are burning. For someone eating at a deficit, they are eating 70-90% of their required energy and micronutrients. I think it pretty irresponsible to suggest that deficit eaters replace some already scarce vitamins, minerals and other needed nutrients with nutrient free added sugars. I believe the long term weight loss is helped by stopping food seeking by meeting nutritional needs.
I'm waging this added sugar battle right now in my own diet, it is a very slippery slope.
Meh, people need to decide it on their own intake needs. I'm eating at a deficit and eat 2100-2300 calories a day. I had no problem fitting some white chocolate reeces into my calories today and still getting plenty of nutrition._Terrapin_ wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Pollywog_la wrote: »What bad thing will happen if added/excess sugar is removed from the modern diet? Answer...nothing.
Nothing bad will happen if people stop eating sugary cereals, or candy. Still plenty of sugars in natural foods.
Comparing it with the fat-scare is unfair. Humans actually NEED fat.
Low fat never said no fat (there's naturally-occurring fat in whole foods too, like nuts, meat (including fatty fish), avocado, olives) -- you don't need to get fat from sweets or packaged foods or fast food, etc., or even lots of sat fat from dairy or fattier cuts of meat to live. In fact, we are still recommended to limit those things. So it's the same.
And of course we do need sugar to live -- it's just that it's so incredibly important our bodies can create it from other things. That there are people who worry about whether they should reduce or limit their consumption of fruits and even vegetables because "sugar" shows that we've gone overboard, as usual, since it's easier to blame a macro than learn to eat in a sensible way that focuses on nutrient dense foods. Well, not easier, but apparently sexier -- there's more money to be made promoting this line. Apparently we are now doing the reverse of the Snackwell's thing -- making "no sugar" products that have extra fat and sodium and calories. People want a magic bullet.
As for your question, I am in favor of people eating fewer foods with lots of sugar added. I don't eat sugary cereal or candy myself (well, I don't like either), and I eat the foods with added sugar that I like (such as ice cream) in moderation. But wanting those foods removed from the food supply seems extreme. Why should they be, when many enjoy them and the correct answer is not to eat stupidly.
No one said that but you.
On the other side, let's not pretend that added sugar is some kind of required or necessary nutrient. Added sugar is pretty much something that we eat for fun, not nutritional needs. It is completely expendable with zero negative effects.
I eat alligator for fun....and the wooden stick. What food do you eat and think 'I need the nutrient specific to this food item'? I get the idea it isn't necessary but I enjoy it and need energy. If we outlawed soda for example, could you imagine the bottling companies believing people would buy bottled water? Oh wait.
Most of what I chose to eat is chosen for its contribution to micronutrients that I have a hard time getting enough of. I'm not perfect, but am trying to get nutrients from food itself. It takes work to find affordable, nutritious, tasty food that fulfills daily needs. I don't understand promoting added sugar as food - it promotes overeating and/or 'under-nutritioning'.
because there is nothing wrong with added sugar in the context of an overall diet that hits micro, macro, and calorie targets…..but you don't want to acknowledge that, do you?
Our perspectives are so different. It does not look like you are sedentary or eating at a deficit or eating more calories than you are burning. For someone eating at a deficit, they are eating 70-90% of their required energy and micronutrients. I think it pretty irresponsible to suggest that deficit eaters replace some already scarce vitamins, minerals and other needed nutrients with nutrient free added sugars. I believe the long term weight loss is helped by stopping food seeking by meeting nutritional needs.
I'm waging this added sugar battle right now in my own diet, it is a very slippery slope.
I am currently cutting on 2800 calories. 3400 maintenance. It's super easy to fit refined sugar. I am currently sitting at 2100 and full with less than 2 hours till bed.
So what do you think about 1200 calories a day? I don't think added sugars have a place there, but here on mfp people are told to not worry about added without respect to total calories available. I think that is garbage advice.
http://www.soheefit.com/everyday-snickers/
Right before her contest she was eating 1280 a day. It would take planning, but if for some reason some one could not do something to earn a few exercise calories (injured or disabled or whatever the case may be), it could be possible. Especially if the treat were small.0 -
BecomingBane wrote: »Speaking in reference to the sugar tax mentioned above. I live in/near the Boulder, Colorado area... Boulder county has a sugar tax and has for several years at least (2010, apparently). It currently applies to anything manufactured and packaged that contains sugar and no flour (this has changed since the original bill which was much more relaxed than current legislation seems to be). This is commonly referred to in Boulder as "The Fat Tax"
I don't know statistics on whether it has helped obesity since Boulder in an incredibly lean city in general but that seems to have more to do with the average per capita income in the area being extremely high and the people being very quick to buy into the current woo fad of the moment as opposed to other factors. Additionally with the high altitudes in the area, there are many, many runners, marathoners, triathletes, etc who come to the area to live or stay for extended periods of time in order to train in the lower oxygen environment.
I really have no personal stance on added sugars as that has never really been one of my trouble foods post childhood, just thought it an interesting addition to the conversation since up-thread many were talking about Mexico's newish tax.
It's been very lucrative for the county and has spurred other changes such as all local school districts removing soda machines from schools (they replaced them with equally sugar laden fruit juice, so no real net gain there, but it's not an entirely new concept.
http://www.leg.state.co.us/CLICS/CLICS2010A/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/8D79982E799858E7872576A80026BD6C?Open&file=1191_ren.pdf
*edited to clarify some statements.
Interesting. I didn't know that! Is it built into the price or added at the end like sales tax?
There have been some regulations in California concerning the choice of beverage in kids' fast food meals, but like you're saying about the Boulder area, it's been in places that tend to already be into fitness and named diets.
It is a sales tax, so added at the end of the transaction. For several years I managed a Point of Sale system for a grocer there, and ultimately it was my fault if items were taxed incorrectly even though it was really the responsibility of the purchasers to tell me this info, they never did. Ultimately I had to become very knowledgeable about what fell into what tax category and had to demand eyes on the product prior to it hitting shelves so that I could verify things like ingredients for this reason.0 -
For someone eating at a deficit, they are eating 70-90% of their required energy and micronutrients. I think it pretty irresponsible to suggest that deficit eaters replace some already scarce vitamins, minerals and other needed nutrients with nutrient free added sugars. I believe the long term weight loss is helped by stopping food seeking by meeting nutritional needs.
I'm waging this added sugar battle right now in my own diet, it is a very slippery slope.
I have no problem with meeting my nutritional goals daily (including 25+ g fiber) without worrying *one iota* about "added sugars". I focus on making sure I eat a variety of foods.. some fruit, some vegetables, some carbohydrates, some protein. I have to pay attention to fiber and salt particularly, but everything else just falls into place.
My calorie goal is currently 1520/day, I'm 5'9". When I exercise I get more freebie calories. As far as I'm concerned, those are perfect for cookies or ice cream. I make delicious cookies, and my life would be much sadder without them. I lost 14 lbs from mid-October to mid-January.. not bad, imo. And I enjoyed ALL the cookies I wanted at Christmas. I baked them, I deserved to enjoy them. Obviously, yes, I found a way to make them fit into my goals.0 -
BecomingBane wrote: »BecomingBane wrote: »Speaking in reference to the sugar tax mentioned above. I live in/near the Boulder, Colorado area... Boulder county has a sugar tax and has for several years at least (2010, apparently). It currently applies to anything manufactured and packaged that contains sugar and no flour (this has changed since the original bill which was much more relaxed than current legislation seems to be). This is commonly referred to in Boulder as "The Fat Tax"
I don't know statistics on whether it has helped obesity since Boulder in an incredibly lean city in general but that seems to have more to do with the average per capita income in the area being extremely high and the people being very quick to buy into the current woo fad of the moment as opposed to other factors. Additionally with the high altitudes in the area, there are many, many runners, marathoners, triathletes, etc who come to the area to live or stay for extended periods of time in order to train in the lower oxygen environment.
I really have no personal stance on added sugars as that has never really been one of my trouble foods post childhood, just thought it an interesting addition to the conversation since up-thread many were talking about Mexico's newish tax.
It's been very lucrative for the county and has spurred other changes such as all local school districts removing soda machines from schools (they replaced them with equally sugar laden fruit juice, so no real net gain there, but it's not an entirely new concept.
http://www.leg.state.co.us/CLICS/CLICS2010A/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/8D79982E799858E7872576A80026BD6C?Open&file=1191_ren.pdf
*edited to clarify some statements.
Interesting. I didn't know that! Is it built into the price or added at the end like sales tax?
There have been some regulations in California concerning the choice of beverage in kids' fast food meals, but like you're saying about the Boulder area, it's been in places that tend to already be into fitness and named diets.
It is a sales tax, so added at the end of the transaction. For several years I managed a Point of Sale system for a grocer there, and ultimately it was my fault if items were taxed incorrectly even though it was really the responsibility of the purchasers to tell me this info, they never did. Ultimately I had to become very knowledgeable about what fell into what tax category and had to demand eyes on the product prior to it hitting shelves so that I could verify things like ingredients for this reason.
Huh. Thanks for sharing! I've learned something today.0 -
Of course moderation is a problem that many, if not most overweight and obese individuals struggle with . If not, most of us wouldn't have gotten in that state to begin with.
Personally I find it easier to practice self-control at the grocery store than during the rest of my week. Now, if you excuse me, there's pickled herring in the fridge calling my name.
I agree with the decision making when shopping. If you don't buy stuff you might be inclined to binge on, chances are you won't binge on a chicken breast, or oranges, or avocados.lemurcat12 wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »Assuming that is accurate, very minimal added sugar. When I lived in Okinawa, I don't recall ever seeing big bags of sugar except in the "Westernized" stores. It was sold more in ounces, not pounds.
No question, although I continue to think the issues with the added sugar in the SAD can't be separated out from the kinds of products that contain them -- high cal, often high fat (specifically sat or trans fat), eaten in the context of a diet that typically includes too many calories and not enough activity. It seems true that there are negative health effects associated with the shift all over the world to a so-called "western" diet, but those changes don't merely include an increase in added sugar, but a whole host of changes. But personally, yes, I choose to limit added sugar and these kinds of foods (without eliminating them -- in fact, I try to include them as I think has been common for many, many years and not in the excesses that have taken place more recently -- I don't think it must be all or nothing).
The point that rabbit was responding to, though, wasn't about added sugar, but a claim that "carbs" are inherently bad and should be nearly eliminated if one wants to be healthy. The chart responds nicely to that claim, and supports the view (that I agree with) that macro mix likely is not that important, except if you have a specific existing health issue or it makes a different to how easy it is for an individual to eat well (which people have to determine for themselves).
My frustration in some of these conversations is the argument that if excess added sugar is bad for us (which I suspect it may be, even apart from calories), that means that someone who wants to be healthy should avoid all sugar (or all added sugar) and having some pie on Thanksgiving or a bit of chocolate daily is taking a huge risk or simply not as virtuous or health conscious as those who choose otherwise. The negative health effects we see now aren't associated with people occasionally eating some sweets (as my grandparents certainly did). They are associated with a huge increase in the consumption of calories, added sugar, sweetened drinks specifically, and various other dietary changes.I'll add myself to the list of those that eat fattier foods when I overeat, but at times combined with sugar (cookies, cheesecake, etc). Assuming you are correct on @lemurcat12 's position, that would give us an N=3.
Savory vs. sweet, yes, but calories from both fat and carbs, but not particularly sugar (and never carbs on their own), would be my issue. Biggest culprit back in the day was likely Indian food (including "bad day, I'm tired, I'll order Indian!"). I still eat it, but not nearly as often, and with more moderation. ;-)
I didn't miss that it was aimed at the single poster claiming all carbs were bad, but in the same sense can't ignore than it's a great example of minimal added sugars, and a great example of eating more foods that aren't processed and westernized.
Personally I don't care if people add more added sugars, or added fats, or added proteins to their diets. None of them are bad in a properly balanced diet, but all of them have the potential to push out other needed nutrients in a poorly balanced diet. And that seems to be where most people fail, allowing excess of certain things to enter their diet, thus either overeating to compensate, or just not doing well at overall nutrition.
When you look at that chart about people in Okinawa, many here would freak out on the numbers. Nine percent protein, six percent fat, next to nothing for added sugars. And yet they manage to make food taste good without all the processing and adding cheap crap to make it taste good. And I think that is part of the issue with the more western diets as well. They tend to combine things and mask flavors, and we end up with high calorie stuff that is high in fats, carbs and maybe even protein. But I've met very few people that could binge on apples or fruit like they can with soda. Or people that eat huge amounts of fatty meat like they can take down cheescake or fatty cookies.
I find that the more I avoid the processed crap, the easier it is to have some flexibility to fill the nutrition where I want, or to find room for some tasty stuff that eaten in excess would be bad news in the calorie content.0 -
I have listened to Lustig's lectures to the public and his Biochem lectures that are not simplified for the general public.
Actually, they are. Those lectures are far from any in depth and realistic biochemistry review one can get while still sounding "sciency". He is not a biochemist and has picked out slides and reports to support his opinion. They are a true disappointment because, while I think there is real research going on that may highlight some issues with HFCS under certain conditions, he does science a disservice by burying it in spacious claims.
He clearly fails at the balance and challenge analysis of what he purports.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »I have listened to Lustig's lectures to the public and his Biochem lectures that are not simplified for the general public.
Actually, they are. Those lectures are far from any in depth and realistic biochemistry review one can get while still sounding "sciency". He is not a biochemist and has picked out slides and reports to support his opinion. They are a true disappointment because, while I think there is real research going on that may highlight some issues with HFCS under certain conditions, he does science a disservice by burying it in spacious claims.
He clearly fails at the balance and challenge analysis of what he purports.
This sounds like the voice of expertise.
0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Just because it's savoury doesn't mean there's no sugar in it.. For example, a large Hawaiian pizza which equals 6 smallish slices has 27.6g of sugar. I think one would be hard pressed to find any "junk" food that doesn't contain sugar.
And being a Hawaiian pizza and all, I'd be willing to bet that the majority of that sugar is in the pineapple which is on the pizza.
And the rest from the tomatoes in the sauce.
yeah, also because low quality tomato sauces usually contain added sugar0 -
_Terrapin_ wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Pollywog_la wrote: »What bad thing will happen if added/excess sugar is removed from the modern diet? Answer...nothing.
Nothing bad will happen if people stop eating sugary cereals, or candy. Still plenty of sugars in natural foods.
Comparing it with the fat-scare is unfair. Humans actually NEED fat.
Low fat never said no fat (there's naturally-occurring fat in whole foods too, like nuts, meat (including fatty fish), avocado, olives) -- you don't need to get fat from sweets or packaged foods or fast food, etc., or even lots of sat fat from dairy or fattier cuts of meat to live. In fact, we are still recommended to limit those things. So it's the same.
And of course we do need sugar to live -- it's just that it's so incredibly important our bodies can create it from other things. That there are people who worry about whether they should reduce or limit their consumption of fruits and even vegetables because "sugar" shows that we've gone overboard, as usual, since it's easier to blame a macro than learn to eat in a sensible way that focuses on nutrient dense foods. Well, not easier, but apparently sexier -- there's more money to be made promoting this line. Apparently we are now doing the reverse of the Snackwell's thing -- making "no sugar" products that have extra fat and sodium and calories. People want a magic bullet.
As for your question, I am in favor of people eating fewer foods with lots of sugar added. I don't eat sugary cereal or candy myself (well, I don't like either), and I eat the foods with added sugar that I like (such as ice cream) in moderation. But wanting those foods removed from the food supply seems extreme. Why should they be, when many enjoy them and the correct answer is not to eat stupidly.
No one said that but you.
On the other side, let's not pretend that added sugar is some kind of required or necessary nutrient. Added sugar is pretty much something that we eat for fun, not nutritional needs. It is completely expendable with zero negative effects.
I eat alligator for fun....and the wooden stick. What food do you eat and think 'I need the nutrient specific to this food item'? I get the idea it isn't necessary but I enjoy it and need energy. If we outlawed soda for example, could you imagine the bottling companies believing people would buy bottled water? Oh wait.
Most of what I chose to eat is chosen for its contribution to micronutrients that I have a hard time getting enough of. I'm not perfect, but am trying to get nutrients from food itself. It takes work to find affordable, nutritious, tasty food that fulfills daily needs. I don't understand promoting added sugar as food - it promotes overeating and/or 'under-nutritioning'.
I haven't read down thread and you have been provided these as examples. Potatoes and leafy greens provide more then a fair share of daily micronutrients. Some grocers will 'give you' leafy green vegetables for free if you ask. Ex. last year the produce department at a local store was 'cropping' the greens off beets. I asked what they do with them and produce manager said they toss them. So he'd give them to me for free. I think beet greens are similar to kale and or collards(another inexpensive green) in terms of nutritional values. Beans and rice are also inexpensive. Similar to tofu, rice will take on a flavor or taste with what you add to it. Also, you can blanche collards or saute beets and add a flavor(savory/smoky/etc) to make them more palatable if you do not enjoy them raw. So, between potatoes, rice and beans, leafy green vegetables I'd think most micronutrients are covered. In terms of fat, olive oil is an option or even using the drippings from bacon to cook with can be done. Granted bacon probably isn't the least expensive option. I can see hitting a fair number of MACRO and micro numbers with these food items. In terms of removing sugary drinks from food stamps program in the US I'd be hard pressed to disagree.
Now, for many people who post regularly, sugar isn't a problem and I don't consider promoting sugar through challenges like a 30 day gelato thread to be promoting the carb. It is a way for many lurkers to learn and understand a serving of gelato daily isn't going to adversely someone's goal at a caloric deficit or losing weight. Added sugar in terms of caloric intake I do not see being promoted on the boards but I do see where many people meet their micro and macro needs and enjoy/eat/consume a treat with a high profile of sugar in it relative to other nutrients.
0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »Just because it's savoury doesn't mean there's no sugar in it.. For example, a large Hawaiian pizza which equals 6 smallish slices has 27.6g of sugar. I think one would be hard pressed to find any "junk" food that doesn't contain sugar.
Pineapple consumed yesterday for me was 97 grams in weight and about 50 calories. This roughly over 3 ounces and 12 grams of sugar. Pizza, in and of itself, has a pretty neat macro breakdown in terms of fat and protein from the cheese. Carbs from the crust make it a lovely portable macro meeting food item. The tomatoes provide a few added micro benefits. Now, if it had fresh beefsteak or Brandywine tomatoes on top it would only help my tastebuds.0 -
_Terrapin_ wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Pollywog_la wrote: »What bad thing will happen if added/excess sugar is removed from the modern diet? Answer...nothing.
Nothing bad will happen if people stop eating sugary cereals, or candy. Still plenty of sugars in natural foods.
Comparing it with the fat-scare is unfair. Humans actually NEED fat.
Low fat never said no fat (there's naturally-occurring fat in whole foods too, like nuts, meat (including fatty fish), avocado, olives) -- you don't need to get fat from sweets or packaged foods or fast food, etc., or even lots of sat fat from dairy or fattier cuts of meat to live. In fact, we are still recommended to limit those things. So it's the same.
And of course we do need sugar to live -- it's just that it's so incredibly important our bodies can create it from other things. That there are people who worry about whether they should reduce or limit their consumption of fruits and even vegetables because "sugar" shows that we've gone overboard, as usual, since it's easier to blame a macro than learn to eat in a sensible way that focuses on nutrient dense foods. Well, not easier, but apparently sexier -- there's more money to be made promoting this line. Apparently we are now doing the reverse of the Snackwell's thing -- making "no sugar" products that have extra fat and sodium and calories. People want a magic bullet.
As for your question, I am in favor of people eating fewer foods with lots of sugar added. I don't eat sugary cereal or candy myself (well, I don't like either), and I eat the foods with added sugar that I like (such as ice cream) in moderation. But wanting those foods removed from the food supply seems extreme. Why should they be, when many enjoy them and the correct answer is not to eat stupidly.
No one said that but you.
On the other side, let's not pretend that added sugar is some kind of required or necessary nutrient. Added sugar is pretty much something that we eat for fun, not nutritional needs. It is completely expendable with zero negative effects.
I eat alligator for fun....and the wooden stick. What food do you eat and think 'I need the nutrient specific to this food item'? I get the idea it isn't necessary but I enjoy it and need energy. If we outlawed soda for example, could you imagine the bottling companies believing people would buy bottled water? Oh wait.
Most of what I chose to eat is chosen for its contribution to micronutrients that I have a hard time getting enough of. I'm not perfect, but am trying to get nutrients from food itself. It takes work to find affordable, nutritious, tasty food that fulfills daily needs. I don't understand promoting added sugar as food - it promotes overeating and/or 'under-nutritioning'.
because there is nothing wrong with added sugar in the context of an overall diet that hits micro, macro, and calorie targets…..but you don't want to acknowledge that, do you?
Our perspectives are so different. It does not look like you are sedentary or eating at a deficit or eating more calories than you are burning. For someone eating at a deficit, they are eating 70-90% of their required energy and micronutrients. I think it pretty irresponsible to suggest that deficit eaters replace some already scarce vitamins, minerals and other needed nutrients with nutrient free added sugars. I believe the long term weight loss is helped by stopping food seeking by meeting nutritional needs.
I'm waging this added sugar battle right now in my own diet, it is a very slippery slope.
Meh, people need to decide it on their own intake needs. I'm eating at a deficit and eat 2100-2300 calories a day. I had no problem fitting some white chocolate reeces into my calories today and still getting plenty of nutrition._Terrapin_ wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Pollywog_la wrote: »What bad thing will happen if added/excess sugar is removed from the modern diet? Answer...nothing.
Nothing bad will happen if people stop eating sugary cereals, or candy. Still plenty of sugars in natural foods.
Comparing it with the fat-scare is unfair. Humans actually NEED fat.
Low fat never said no fat (there's naturally-occurring fat in whole foods too, like nuts, meat (including fatty fish), avocado, olives) -- you don't need to get fat from sweets or packaged foods or fast food, etc., or even lots of sat fat from dairy or fattier cuts of meat to live. In fact, we are still recommended to limit those things. So it's the same.
And of course we do need sugar to live -- it's just that it's so incredibly important our bodies can create it from other things. That there are people who worry about whether they should reduce or limit their consumption of fruits and even vegetables because "sugar" shows that we've gone overboard, as usual, since it's easier to blame a macro than learn to eat in a sensible way that focuses on nutrient dense foods. Well, not easier, but apparently sexier -- there's more money to be made promoting this line. Apparently we are now doing the reverse of the Snackwell's thing -- making "no sugar" products that have extra fat and sodium and calories. People want a magic bullet.
As for your question, I am in favor of people eating fewer foods with lots of sugar added. I don't eat sugary cereal or candy myself (well, I don't like either), and I eat the foods with added sugar that I like (such as ice cream) in moderation. But wanting those foods removed from the food supply seems extreme. Why should they be, when many enjoy them and the correct answer is not to eat stupidly.
No one said that but you.
On the other side, let's not pretend that added sugar is some kind of required or necessary nutrient. Added sugar is pretty much something that we eat for fun, not nutritional needs. It is completely expendable with zero negative effects.
I eat alligator for fun....and the wooden stick. What food do you eat and think 'I need the nutrient specific to this food item'? I get the idea it isn't necessary but I enjoy it and need energy. If we outlawed soda for example, could you imagine the bottling companies believing people would buy bottled water? Oh wait.
Most of what I chose to eat is chosen for its contribution to micronutrients that I have a hard time getting enough of. I'm not perfect, but am trying to get nutrients from food itself. It takes work to find affordable, nutritious, tasty food that fulfills daily needs. I don't understand promoting added sugar as food - it promotes overeating and/or 'under-nutritioning'.
because there is nothing wrong with added sugar in the context of an overall diet that hits micro, macro, and calorie targets…..but you don't want to acknowledge that, do you?
Our perspectives are so different. It does not look like you are sedentary or eating at a deficit or eating more calories than you are burning. For someone eating at a deficit, they are eating 70-90% of their required energy and micronutrients. I think it pretty irresponsible to suggest that deficit eaters replace some already scarce vitamins, minerals and other needed nutrients with nutrient free added sugars. I believe the long term weight loss is helped by stopping food seeking by meeting nutritional needs.
I'm waging this added sugar battle right now in my own diet, it is a very slippery slope.
I am currently cutting on 2800 calories. 3400 maintenance. It's super easy to fit refined sugar. I am currently sitting at 2100 and full with less than 2 hours till bed.
So what do you think about 1200 calories a day? I don't think added sugars have a place there, but here on mfp people are told to not worry about added without respect to total calories available. I think that is garbage advice.
If you can fit whipped cream into your diet, why do you think others can't fit sugar into theirs?0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Just because it's savoury doesn't mean there's no sugar in it.. For example, a large Hawaiian pizza which equals 6 smallish slices has 27.6g of sugar. I think one would be hard pressed to find any "junk" food that doesn't contain sugar.
And being a Hawaiian pizza and all, I'd be willing to bet that the majority of that sugar is in the pineapple which is on the pizza.
And the rest from the tomatoes in the sauce.
yeah, also because low quality tomato sauces usually contain added sugar
Sugar is added to tomato sauce when the tomatoes aren't as sweet.
If you start with ripe, sweet tomatoes there is no need to add sugar. If the tomatoes aren't as ripe, a small amount of sugar is added
Both sauces end up with the same amount of sugar.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »I have listened to Lustig's lectures to the public and his Biochem lectures that are not simplified for the general public.
Actually, they are. Those lectures are far from any in depth and realistic biochemistry review one can get while still sounding "sciency". He is not a biochemist and has picked out slides and reports to support his opinion. They are a true disappointment because, while I think there is real research going on that may highlight some issues with HFCS under certain conditions, he does science a disservice by burying it in spacious claims.
He clearly fails at the balance and challenge analysis of what he purports.
This sounds like the voice of expertise.
A while back I watched his "Bitter Truth" video and took notes - openly with the idea of seeing if and where he had good input into the debate. The biochemistry part is actually relatively small and he focuses a lot of his energy on epidemiological data and intervention studies. But even so, when I dug in a little, I was disappointed to find him outright lying or stretching the truth.
For example, when he talks about the 2004 study of UK schools intervention to reduce "fizzy drinks" he states "the took away the soda machines in schools" which is false. The study was a reduced consumption of these drinks by an educational intervention which resulted in a small decrease in consumption of soda (0.6 glasses) which in turn (magically) resulted in 0% increase in obesity (vs 7% increase in control). But this study is weak. If soda was the cause of obesity, one would actually expect a DECREASE in rates. This was not statistically observed. He makes no mention of that. So, not only were sodas not removed from the school, the dietary changes occurred through an education intervention and likely included bias of changes in self management of diet, etc...
There are plenty of examples where he is massaging the message to tell his own truth.
If I can find my notes, we could discuss the biochem stuff, but I think that would be boring to most.
0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Just because it's savoury doesn't mean there's no sugar in it.. For example, a large Hawaiian pizza which equals 6 smallish slices has 27.6g of sugar. I think one would be hard pressed to find any "junk" food that doesn't contain sugar.
And being a Hawaiian pizza and all, I'd be willing to bet that the majority of that sugar is in the pineapple which is on the pizza.
And the rest from the tomatoes in the sauce.
yeah, also because low quality tomato sauces usually contain added sugar
Sugar is added to tomato sauce when the tomatoes aren't as sweet.
If you start with ripe, sweet tomatoes there is no need to add sugar. If the tomatoes aren't as ripe, a small amount of sugar is added
Both sauces end up with the same amount of sugar.
Do you think so? Let's see if it is true...
So my favorite tomato puree (Mutti, that can be used as it is) contains 5 g of sugar per 100g of product:
While Pizza Hut marinara sauce contains...:
...32g of sugar per 100g of product!
Six times more (and so the calories), that's impressive....
So yes, definitely pizza may contain a good amount of "hidden" sugar.
0 -
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.21371/abstract is a rare example of Lustig appearing as a study author relating to sugar, with a not-very isocaloric substitution in obese ethnic minority kids.0
-
Y'all missed the memo; pizza is so much better with roasted garlic hummus instead of pizza sauce. And if I want that much sugar on my pizza, I'll just go for bbq sauce.0
-
Gianfranco_R wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Just because it's savoury doesn't mean there's no sugar in it.. For example, a large Hawaiian pizza which equals 6 smallish slices has 27.6g of sugar. I think one would be hard pressed to find any "junk" food that doesn't contain sugar.
And being a Hawaiian pizza and all, I'd be willing to bet that the majority of that sugar is in the pineapple which is on the pizza.
And the rest from the tomatoes in the sauce.
yeah, also because low quality tomato sauces usually contain added sugar
Sugar is added to tomato sauce when the tomatoes aren't as sweet.
If you start with ripe, sweet tomatoes there is no need to add sugar. If the tomatoes aren't as ripe, a small amount of sugar is added
Both sauces end up with the same amount of sugar.
Do you think so? Let's see if it is true...
So my favorite tomato puree (Mutti, that can be used as it is) contains 5 g of sugar per 100g of product:
While Pizza Hut marinara sauce contains...:
...32g of sugar per 100g of product!
Six times more (and so the calories), that's impressive....
So yes, definitely pizza may contain a good amount of "hidden" sugar.
Neat trick. Putting your product in as 100g while putting Pizza Hut in as 100 x 1g to maximize rounding error0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Just because it's savoury doesn't mean there's no sugar in it.. For example, a large Hawaiian pizza which equals 6 smallish slices has 27.6g of sugar. I think one would be hard pressed to find any "junk" food that doesn't contain sugar.
And being a Hawaiian pizza and all, I'd be willing to bet that the majority of that sugar is in the pineapple which is on the pizza.
And the rest from the tomatoes in the sauce.
yeah, also because low quality tomato sauces usually contain added sugar
Sugar is added to tomato sauce when the tomatoes aren't as sweet.
If you start with ripe, sweet tomatoes there is no need to add sugar. If the tomatoes aren't as ripe, a small amount of sugar is added
Both sauces end up with the same amount of sugar.
Do you think so? Let's see if it is true...
So my favorite tomato puree (Mutti, that can be used as it is) contains 5 g of sugar per 100g of product:
While Pizza Hut marinara sauce contains...:
...32g of sugar per 100g of product!
Six times more (and so the calories), that's impressive....
So yes, definitely pizza may contain a good amount of "hidden" sugar.
Funny. If you actually go to their website and take the time to look at the nutrition info of their sauce, there's 0 added sugar in it. Also 10 calories per sauce that's on 1 slice of pizza.0 -
if you start with 1 oz (the biggest entry in the database) you still get to 32g sugar per 100g. No error issue.0
-
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 911 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions