Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Hot topics! Sugar in fruit
Replies
-
FunkyTobias wrote: »Correcting your misinformation isn't trolling.
The people that say it doesn't matter what you eat all the matter is the calories are the ones spreading misinformation. That is exactly the message the world has gotten for the last few decades and all it has resulted in is more obesity.
It matters if you get your sugar form fruit or from a soft drink. It might not make a difference to your calculations but it makes a difference to your liver. In the long run that is what matters. If though it takes decades for sugar to kill doesn't mean that it isn't doing harm.
I boggles my mind the misinformation being spread and then hiding behind CICO. I see some posters actually talking about it reasonably but they are few. Sure it can and does often work, but there are also a lot of other outcomes than just burning fat. Claiming that a calorie deficit always results in fat loss doesn't make it true.
For the record I actually had to study thermodynamics and pass to get my engineering degree. That was a few decades ago, but thermodynamics hasn't changed. Most people talking about the laws of thermodynamics haven't even ever studied thermodynamics.
There are no storage of theories about what is going on with obesity and how to fix it. For working towards improving health CICO can be a useful tool. However one has to realize that not all the foods are treated the same in the body. Claiming that is the case is blatant misinformation.
You watch too many fear mongering movies and read too many blogs...
You have no idea of what I'm doing. I'm not into any form of fear mongering, claiming that is absurd.
From everything I can find there eating fruit is generally protective and good for you. Fructose is bad but when eaten with fruit it isn't harmful but it can be harmful in highly processed food.
So what part of cutting back on added sugars being good is fear mongering? What part of saying it is more important as to what you eat instead of just watching the calories is fear mongering?
This is fear mongering...
"It matters if you get your sugar form fruit or from a soft drink. It might not make a difference to your calculations but it makes a difference to your liver. In the long run that is what matters. If though it takes decades for sugar to kill doesn't mean that it isn't doing harm..."
I do not expect you to understand which I'm fine with. You are what yo are just as I am what I am.1 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »Correcting your misinformation isn't trolling.
The people that say it doesn't matter what you eat all the matter is the calories are the ones spreading misinformation. That is exactly the message the world has gotten for the last few decades and all it has resulted in is more obesity.
It matters if you get your sugar form fruit or from a soft drink. It might not make a difference to your calculations but it makes a difference to your liver. In the long run that is what matters. If though it takes decades for sugar to kill doesn't mean that it isn't doing harm.
I boggles my mind the misinformation being spread and then hiding behind CICO. I see some posters actually talking about it reasonably but they are few. Sure it can and does often work, but there are also a lot of other outcomes than just burning fat. Claiming that a calorie deficit always results in fat loss doesn't make it true.
For the record I actually had to study thermodynamics and pass to get my engineering degree. That was a few decades ago, but thermodynamics hasn't changed. Most people talking about the laws of thermodynamics haven't even ever studied thermodynamics.
There are no storage of theories about what is going on with obesity and how to fix it. For working towards improving health CICO can be a useful tool. However one has to realize that not all the foods are treated the same in the body. Claiming that is the case is blatant misinformation.
You watch too many fear mongering movies and read too many blogs...
You have no idea of what I'm doing. I'm not into any form of fear mongering, claiming that is absurd.
From everything I can find there eating fruit is generally protective and good for you. Fructose is bad but when eaten with fruit it isn't harmful but it can be harmful in highly processed food.
So what part of cutting back on added sugars being good is fear mongering? What part of saying it is more important as to what you eat instead of just watching the calories is fear mongering?
This is fear mongering...
"It matters if you get your sugar form fruit or from a soft drink. It might not make a difference to your calculations but it makes a difference to your liver. In the long run that is what matters. If though it takes decades for sugar to kill doesn't mean that it isn't doing harm..."
I do not expect you to understand which I'm fine with. You are what yo are just as I am what I am.
There are multiple studies that have verified sweeten beverages can quickly lead to fatty liver disease, so far I haven't seen any that showed that was an issue with eating fruit. There isn't any fear mongering there. Lots of people reacted the same way to health issues with tobacco and lots of people still smoke and chew tobacco. The warnings are there and it isn't fear mongering.
Drink your sugar if you want too, that is your choice. Just don't be surprised when you are called out for supporting an unhealthy choice.5 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »Correcting your misinformation isn't trolling.
The people that say it doesn't matter what you eat all the matter is the calories are the ones spreading misinformation. That is exactly the message the world has gotten for the last few decades and all it has resulted in is more obesity.
It matters if you get your sugar form fruit or from a soft drink. It might not make a difference to your calculations but it makes a difference to your liver. In the long run that is what matters. If though it takes decades for sugar to kill doesn't mean that it isn't doing harm.
I boggles my mind the misinformation being spread and then hiding behind CICO. I see some posters actually talking about it reasonably but they are few. Sure it can and does often work, but there are also a lot of other outcomes than just burning fat. Claiming that a calorie deficit always results in fat loss doesn't make it true.
For the record I actually had to study thermodynamics and pass to get my engineering degree. That was a few decades ago, but thermodynamics hasn't changed. Most people talking about the laws of thermodynamics haven't even ever studied thermodynamics.
There are no storage of theories about what is going on with obesity and how to fix it. For working towards improving health CICO can be a useful tool. However one has to realize that not all the foods are treated the same in the body. Claiming that is the case is blatant misinformation.
You watch too many fear mongering movies and read too many blogs...
You have no idea of what I'm doing. I'm not into any form of fear mongering, claiming that is absurd.
From everything I can find there eating fruit is generally protective and good for you. Fructose is bad but when eaten with fruit it isn't harmful but it can be harmful in highly processed food.
So what part of cutting back on added sugars being good is fear mongering? What part of saying it is more important as to what you eat instead of just watching the calories is fear mongering?
This is fear mongering...
"It matters if you get your sugar form fruit or from a soft drink. It might not make a difference to your calculations but it makes a difference to your liver. In the long run that is what matters. If though it takes decades for sugar to kill doesn't mean that it isn't doing harm..."
I do not expect you to understand which I'm fine with. You are what yo are just as I am what I am.
There are multiple studies that have verified sweeten beverages can quickly lead to fatty liver disease, so far I haven't seen any that showed that was an issue with eating fruit. There isn't any fear mongering there. Lots of people reacted the same way to health issues with tobacco and lots of people still smoke and chew tobacco. The warnings are there and it isn't fear mongering.
Drink your sugar if you want too, that is your choice. Just don't be surprised when you are called out for supporting an unhealthy choice.
More fear mongering...
1 -
stevencloser wrote: »
That was my thought. Especially not if you eat a sensible and calorie appropriate diet.0 -
waiting for someone to post that not having refined sugar in your diet can/could/maybe lead to death, I, myself don't eat refined but maybe once or twice a year, but I doubt its been really proven to be harmful to humans yet
I'm good with eating uncooked, raw fruit, or cooked processed fruit, like apple sauce and jams, chutney etc.0 -
No one claims added sugar is necessary for health. What people point out is that claims that it is inherently bad for you or different in kind from sugar that happens to be paired with the rest of the stuff in a piece of fruit (or whatever) are inaccurate.1
-
Oh, and just so you can't assume that I am one of those people who clearly want to eat all of the sugar. Yes, that red line is 5, and the highest spike is eleven. This is total not "added".
0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Oh, and just so you can't assume that I am one of those people who clearly want to eat all of the sugar. Yes, that red line is 5, and the highest spike is eleven. This is total not "added".
He does assume a lot. Like you, I really don't consume all that much added sugar. But I don't fear it either.0 -
If I'm not mistaken, there is an individual who has posted in this thread (but did not state his consumption here) who consumes around 100 grams of added sugar a day, which is more than the rest of us.0
-
I consume 100 grams of added sugar pretty often.0
-
ForecasterJason wrote: »If I'm not mistaken, there is an individual who has posted in this thread (but did not state his consumption here) who consumes around 100 grams of added sugar a day, which is more than the rest of us.
I fail to see how the intake of one person posting in this thread is at all relevant to the context of this discussion (although admittedly I am not sure what the point of any of this is anymore). What clarity does that provide, what direction does that take us in? Without knowing the context of the individual's overall diet, then flippantly commenting that they eat more than 100g of sugar is not helpful or germane to the conversation. I also don't know how looking at ANYONE's individual intake helps the conversation, whether you are talking about someone consuming less than 10 g or greater than 100g. Did someone say that no one ever consumes more than 100g of sugar each day? If they did, and this proves them wrong - ok, good on you, but I don't think that's what happening here. It seems like you are just looking for a "gotcha" but maybe I'm missing something.2 -
WinoGelato wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »If I'm not mistaken, there is an individual who has posted in this thread (but did not state his consumption here) who consumes around 100 grams of added sugar a day, which is more than the rest of us.
I fail to see how the intake of one person posting in this thread is at all relevant to the context of this discussion (although admittedly I am not sure what the point of any of this is anymore). What clarity does that provide, what direction does that take us in? Without knowing the context of the individual's overall diet, then flippantly commenting that they eat more than 100g of sugar is not helpful or germane to the conversation. I also don't know how looking at ANYONE's individual intake helps the conversation, whether you are talking about someone consuming less than 10 g or greater than 100g. Did someone say that no one ever consumes more than 100g of sugar each day? If they did, and this proves them wrong - ok, good on you, but I don't think that's what happening here. It seems like you are just looking for a "gotcha" but maybe I'm missing something.
Yeah, it really seems like there's no point to this anymore. It's like some people just really need there to be something intrinsically wrong with every grain of sugar, because the what and the how much changes with every post.
If anything, the fact that @Gallowmere1984 consumes a very small amount of sugar, and @hornsby eats an impressively high amount of sugar, and they are both alive and well and lookin' good and succeeding towards their goals, and not cancer-ridden, diabetic, energy-sapped shells of men makes as powerful a point as anything else I've read in this thread!6 -
WinoGelato wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »If I'm not mistaken, there is an individual who has posted in this thread (but did not state his consumption here) who consumes around 100 grams of added sugar a day, which is more than the rest of us.
I fail to see how the intake of one person posting in this thread is at all relevant to the context of this discussion (although admittedly I am not sure what the point of any of this is anymore). What clarity does that provide, what direction does that take us in? Without knowing the context of the individual's overall diet, then flippantly commenting that they eat more than 100g of sugar is not helpful or germane to the conversation. I also don't know how looking at ANYONE's individual intake helps the conversation, whether you are talking about someone consuming less than 10 g or greater than 100g. Did someone say that no one ever consumes more than 100g of sugar each day? If they did, and this proves them wrong - ok, good on you, but I don't think that's what happening here. It seems like you are just looking for a "gotcha" but maybe I'm missing something.
Yeah, it really seems like there's no point to this anymore. It's like some people just really need there to be something intrinsically wrong with every grain of sugar, because the what and the how much changes with every post.
If anything, the fact that @Gallowmere1984 consumes a very small amount of sugar, and @hornsby eats an impressively high amount of sugar, and they are both alive and well and lookin' good and succeeding towards their goals, and not cancer-ridden, diabetic, energy-sapped shells of men makes as powerful a point as anything else I've read in this thread!
Exactly this...
0 -
Some of us agree with the recommendation to make added sugar no more than 10% of one's daily calories. And if it's over that on a regular basis, I'd say that may be risky depending on the rest of the diet, though I realize that's more so my opinion. I'd say it's relevant to the conversation given that we were talking about how much sugar is in each of our diets, and the conclusion was that most of us eat a reasonable amount of sugar. I don't think anyone that posted how much they were eating was eating in excess of the 10% daily calories limit for added sugar on a regular basis. Now when it comes to 100 grams of added sugar, that's a different story.WinoGelato wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »If I'm not mistaken, there is an individual who has posted in this thread (but did not state his consumption here) who consumes around 100 grams of added sugar a day, which is more than the rest of us.
I fail to see how the intake of one person posting in this thread is at all relevant to the context of this discussion (although admittedly I am not sure what the point of any of this is anymore). What clarity does that provide, what direction does that take us in? Without knowing the context of the individual's overall diet, then flippantly commenting that they eat more than 100g of sugar is not helpful or germane to the conversation. I also don't know how looking at ANYONE's individual intake helps the conversation, whether you are talking about someone consuming less than 10 g or greater than 100g. Did someone say that no one ever consumes more than 100g of sugar each day? If they did, and this proves them wrong - ok, good on you, but I don't think that's what happening here. It seems like you are just looking for a "gotcha" but maybe I'm missing something.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Some of us agree with the recommendation to make added sugar no more than 10% of one's daily calories. And if it's over that on a regular basis, I'd say that may be risky depending on the rest of the diet, though I realize that's more so my opinion. I'd say it's relevant to the conversation given that we were talking about how much sugar is in each of our diets, and the conclusion was that most of us eat a reasonable amount of sugar. I don't think anyone that posted how much they were eating was eating in excess of the 10% daily calories limit for added sugar on a regular basis. Now when it comes to 100 grams of added sugar, that's a different story.WinoGelato wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »If I'm not mistaken, there is an individual who has posted in this thread (but did not state his consumption here) who consumes around 100 grams of added sugar a day, which is more than the rest of us.
I fail to see how the intake of one person posting in this thread is at all relevant to the context of this discussion (although admittedly I am not sure what the point of any of this is anymore). What clarity does that provide, what direction does that take us in? Without knowing the context of the individual's overall diet, then flippantly commenting that they eat more than 100g of sugar is not helpful or germane to the conversation. I also don't know how looking at ANYONE's individual intake helps the conversation, whether you are talking about someone consuming less than 10 g or greater than 100g. Did someone say that no one ever consumes more than 100g of sugar each day? If they did, and this proves them wrong - ok, good on you, but I don't think that's what happening here. It seems like you are just looking for a "gotcha" but maybe I'm missing something.
I'd say that your ten % number is wrong. Some of us agree that added sugar make no difference unless one is blowing out their calorie allotment, or not getting enough nutrition. If one is meeting micro, macro, and calorie targets then added sugar is not going to be a concern.
Again, all of this is your opinion and just because you have convinced yourself that anyone consuming more than 10% of added sugar is somehow doing harm to themselves, does not matter.0 -
Well some call it fear-mongering, but I'm reminded of a statement that was posted earlier in that for any given individual, a high intake of sugar could take a while before it becomes an issue.WinoGelato wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »If I'm not mistaken, there is an individual who has posted in this thread (but did not state his consumption here) who consumes around 100 grams of added sugar a day, which is more than the rest of us.
I fail to see how the intake of one person posting in this thread is at all relevant to the context of this discussion (although admittedly I am not sure what the point of any of this is anymore). What clarity does that provide, what direction does that take us in? Without knowing the context of the individual's overall diet, then flippantly commenting that they eat more than 100g of sugar is not helpful or germane to the conversation. I also don't know how looking at ANYONE's individual intake helps the conversation, whether you are talking about someone consuming less than 10 g or greater than 100g. Did someone say that no one ever consumes more than 100g of sugar each day? If they did, and this proves them wrong - ok, good on you, but I don't think that's what happening here. It seems like you are just looking for a "gotcha" but maybe I'm missing something.
Yeah, it really seems like there's no point to this anymore. It's like some people just really need there to be something intrinsically wrong with every grain of sugar, because the what and the how much changes with every post.
If anything, the fact that @Gallowmere1984 consumes a very small amount of sugar, and @hornsby eats an impressively high amount of sugar, and they are both alive and well and lookin' good and succeeding towards their goals, and not cancer-ridden, diabetic, energy-sapped shells of men makes as powerful a point as anything else I've read in this thread!
1 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Well some call it fear-mongering, but I'm reminded of a statement that was posted earlier in that for any given individual, a high intake of sugar could take a while before it becomes an issue.WinoGelato wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »If I'm not mistaken, there is an individual who has posted in this thread (but did not state his consumption here) who consumes around 100 grams of added sugar a day, which is more than the rest of us.
I fail to see how the intake of one person posting in this thread is at all relevant to the context of this discussion (although admittedly I am not sure what the point of any of this is anymore). What clarity does that provide, what direction does that take us in? Without knowing the context of the individual's overall diet, then flippantly commenting that they eat more than 100g of sugar is not helpful or germane to the conversation. I also don't know how looking at ANYONE's individual intake helps the conversation, whether you are talking about someone consuming less than 10 g or greater than 100g. Did someone say that no one ever consumes more than 100g of sugar each day? If they did, and this proves them wrong - ok, good on you, but I don't think that's what happening here. It seems like you are just looking for a "gotcha" but maybe I'm missing something.
Yeah, it really seems like there's no point to this anymore. It's like some people just really need there to be something intrinsically wrong with every grain of sugar, because the what and the how much changes with every post.
If anything, the fact that @Gallowmere1984 consumes a very small amount of sugar, and @hornsby eats an impressively high amount of sugar, and they are both alive and well and lookin' good and succeeding towards their goals, and not cancer-ridden, diabetic, energy-sapped shells of men makes as powerful a point as anything else I've read in this thread!
I'm still waiting for my other shoe to drop. I still get perfect numbers at my yearly check ups. I eat sugar regularly.0 -
Except 100 grams is my 10%.0
-
Religion, Politics and Diet. Three topics that never go anywhere...0
-
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Some of us agree with the recommendation to make added sugar no more than 10% of one's daily calories. And if it's over that on a regular basis, I'd say that may be risky depending on the rest of the diet, though I realize that's more so my opinion. I'd say it's relevant to the conversation given that we were talking about how much sugar is in each of our diets, and the conclusion was that most of us eat a reasonable amount of sugar. I don't think anyone that posted how much they were eating was eating in excess of the 10% daily calories limit for added sugar on a regular basis. Now when it comes to 100 grams of added sugar, that's a different story.WinoGelato wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »If I'm not mistaken, there is an individual who has posted in this thread (but did not state his consumption here) who consumes around 100 grams of added sugar a day, which is more than the rest of us.
I fail to see how the intake of one person posting in this thread is at all relevant to the context of this discussion (although admittedly I am not sure what the point of any of this is anymore). What clarity does that provide, what direction does that take us in? Without knowing the context of the individual's overall diet, then flippantly commenting that they eat more than 100g of sugar is not helpful or germane to the conversation. I also don't know how looking at ANYONE's individual intake helps the conversation, whether you are talking about someone consuming less than 10 g or greater than 100g. Did someone say that no one ever consumes more than 100g of sugar each day? If they did, and this proves them wrong - ok, good on you, but I don't think that's what happening here. It seems like you are just looking for a "gotcha" but maybe I'm missing something.
Ok, but still, to what end? You and others agree with the 10% recommendation. That's fine. I actually don't have a problem with guidelines to provide people some numbers to aim for, but it is still up to an individual and their personal choice whether they follow those guidelines or not. You are adhering to that. I think I do too, but I don't closely track sugar. Hornsby probably is as well, based on his total calorie intake. But even if a person wasn't, even if they are blowing that number out of the water, what are you proposing? The recommendations are out there, if a person is unaware or even aware but chooses to ignore them, what are you proposing to do about it? The process is in place to update nutritional information on packaged food so a person can differentiate between added and natural sugars. What else are you suggesting, and how does this directly impact you?0 -
-
WinoGelato wrote: »
Lol!0 -
I guess my memory is off, as I thought your maintenance was around 3600.Except 100 grams is my 10%.
There isn't anything in particular that I propose to do about that or am suggesting. But I think it's important that those who aren't following the recommendations know it is potentially risky.WinoGelato wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Some of us agree with the recommendation to make added sugar no more than 10% of one's daily calories. And if it's over that on a regular basis, I'd say that may be risky depending on the rest of the diet, though I realize that's more so my opinion. I'd say it's relevant to the conversation given that we were talking about how much sugar is in each of our diets, and the conclusion was that most of us eat a reasonable amount of sugar. I don't think anyone that posted how much they were eating was eating in excess of the 10% daily calories limit for added sugar on a regular basis. Now when it comes to 100 grams of added sugar, that's a different story.WinoGelato wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »If I'm not mistaken, there is an individual who has posted in this thread (but did not state his consumption here) who consumes around 100 grams of added sugar a day, which is more than the rest of us.
I fail to see how the intake of one person posting in this thread is at all relevant to the context of this discussion (although admittedly I am not sure what the point of any of this is anymore). What clarity does that provide, what direction does that take us in? Without knowing the context of the individual's overall diet, then flippantly commenting that they eat more than 100g of sugar is not helpful or germane to the conversation. I also don't know how looking at ANYONE's individual intake helps the conversation, whether you are talking about someone consuming less than 10 g or greater than 100g. Did someone say that no one ever consumes more than 100g of sugar each day? If they did, and this proves them wrong - ok, good on you, but I don't think that's what happening here. It seems like you are just looking for a "gotcha" but maybe I'm missing something.
Ok, but still, to what end? You and others agree with the 10% recommendation. That's fine. I actually don't have a problem with guidelines to provide people some numbers to aim for, but it is still up to an individual and their personal choice whether they follow those guidelines or not. You are adhering to that. I think I do too, but I don't closely track sugar. Hornsby probably is as well, based on his total calorie intake. But even if a person wasn't, even if they are blowing that number out of the water, what are you proposing? The recommendations are out there, if a person is unaware or even aware but chooses to ignore them, what are you proposing to do about it? The process is in place to update nutritional information on packaged food so a person can differentiate between added and natural sugars. What else are you suggesting, and how does this directly impact you?
0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
I guess my memory is off, as I thought your maintenance was around 3600.Except 100 grams is my 10%.
There isn't anything in particular that I propose to do about that or am suggesting. But I think it's important that those who aren't following the recommendations know it is potentially risky.WinoGelato wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Some of us agree with the recommendation to make added sugar no more than 10% of one's daily calories. And if it's over that on a regular basis, I'd say that may be risky depending on the rest of the diet, though I realize that's more so my opinion. I'd say it's relevant to the conversation given that we were talking about how much sugar is in each of our diets, and the conclusion was that most of us eat a reasonable amount of sugar. I don't think anyone that posted how much they were eating was eating in excess of the 10% daily calories limit for added sugar on a regular basis. Now when it comes to 100 grams of added sugar, that's a different story.WinoGelato wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »If I'm not mistaken, there is an individual who has posted in this thread (but did not state his consumption here) who consumes around 100 grams of added sugar a day, which is more than the rest of us.
I fail to see how the intake of one person posting in this thread is at all relevant to the context of this discussion (although admittedly I am not sure what the point of any of this is anymore). What clarity does that provide, what direction does that take us in? Without knowing the context of the individual's overall diet, then flippantly commenting that they eat more than 100g of sugar is not helpful or germane to the conversation. I also don't know how looking at ANYONE's individual intake helps the conversation, whether you are talking about someone consuming less than 10 g or greater than 100g. Did someone say that no one ever consumes more than 100g of sugar each day? If they did, and this proves them wrong - ok, good on you, but I don't think that's what happening here. It seems like you are just looking for a "gotcha" but maybe I'm missing something.
Ok, but still, to what end? You and others agree with the 10% recommendation. That's fine. I actually don't have a problem with guidelines to provide people some numbers to aim for, but it is still up to an individual and their personal choice whether they follow those guidelines or not. You are adhering to that. I think I do too, but I don't closely track sugar. Hornsby probably is as well, based on his total calorie intake. But even if a person wasn't, even if they are blowing that number out of the water, what are you proposing? The recommendations are out there, if a person is unaware or even aware but chooses to ignore them, what are you proposing to do about it? The process is in place to update nutritional information on packaged food so a person can differentiate between added and natural sugars. What else are you suggesting, and how does this directly impact you?
Potentially risky, how so?0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »If I'm not mistaken, there is an individual who has posted in this thread (but did not state his consumption here) who consumes around 100 grams of added sugar a day, which is more than the rest of us.
I fail to see how the intake of one person posting in this thread is at all relevant to the context of this discussion (although admittedly I am not sure what the point of any of this is anymore). What clarity does that provide, what direction does that take us in? Without knowing the context of the individual's overall diet, then flippantly commenting that they eat more than 100g of sugar is not helpful or germane to the conversation. I also don't know how looking at ANYONE's individual intake helps the conversation, whether you are talking about someone consuming less than 10 g or greater than 100g. Did someone say that no one ever consumes more than 100g of sugar each day? If they did, and this proves them wrong - ok, good on you, but I don't think that's what happening here. It seems like you are just looking for a "gotcha" but maybe I'm missing something.
Some of us agree with the recommendation to make added sugar no more than 10% of one's daily calories. And if it's over that on a regular basis, I'd say that may be risky depending on the rest of the diet, though I realize that's more so my opinion. I'd say it's relevant to the conversation given that we were talking about how much sugar is in each of our diets, and the conclusion was that most of us eat a reasonable amount of sugar. I don't think anyone that posted how much they were eating was eating in excess of the 10% daily calories limit for added sugar on a regular basis. Now when it comes to 100 grams of added sugar, that's a different story.
(1) I still don't see why this is relevant. You've made no argument at all that it is. Why is how much sugar everyone eats even relevant? Christine made a mistaken assumption pages ago, that's all you've got.
(2) The WHO and the US Dietary Guidelines recommend limiting added sugar because of the risks of obesity and tooth decay. Hornsby seems to have his weight and BF% under control (to put it mildly, most of us would love to be in the kind of shape he is), and I imagine he understands dental hygiene, although you can ask him yourself. Whether there's a concern beyond that depends on whether people are eating a diet that includes the nutrients they need, and given Hornsby's knowledge and activity level, I see no reason to assume he is not, and I also am not interested enough to review his diary because--again--irrelevant.3 -
and the wheel in the sky keeps on turning...2
-
queenliz99 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I guess my memory is off, as I thought your maintenance was around 3600.Except 100 grams is my 10%.
There isn't anything in particular that I propose to do about that or am suggesting. But I think it's important that those who aren't following the recommendations know it is potentially risky.WinoGelato wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Some of us agree with the recommendation to make added sugar no more than 10% of one's daily calories. And if it's over that on a regular basis, I'd say that may be risky depending on the rest of the diet, though I realize that's more so my opinion. I'd say it's relevant to the conversation given that we were talking about how much sugar is in each of our diets, and the conclusion was that most of us eat a reasonable amount of sugar. I don't think anyone that posted how much they were eating was eating in excess of the 10% daily calories limit for added sugar on a regular basis. Now when it comes to 100 grams of added sugar, that's a different story.WinoGelato wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »If I'm not mistaken, there is an individual who has posted in this thread (but did not state his consumption here) who consumes around 100 grams of added sugar a day, which is more than the rest of us.
I fail to see how the intake of one person posting in this thread is at all relevant to the context of this discussion (although admittedly I am not sure what the point of any of this is anymore). What clarity does that provide, what direction does that take us in? Without knowing the context of the individual's overall diet, then flippantly commenting that they eat more than 100g of sugar is not helpful or germane to the conversation. I also don't know how looking at ANYONE's individual intake helps the conversation, whether you are talking about someone consuming less than 10 g or greater than 100g. Did someone say that no one ever consumes more than 100g of sugar each day? If they did, and this proves them wrong - ok, good on you, but I don't think that's what happening here. It seems like you are just looking for a "gotcha" but maybe I'm missing something.
Ok, but still, to what end? You and others agree with the 10% recommendation. That's fine. I actually don't have a problem with guidelines to provide people some numbers to aim for, but it is still up to an individual and their personal choice whether they follow those guidelines or not. You are adhering to that. I think I do too, but I don't closely track sugar. Hornsby probably is as well, based on his total calorie intake. But even if a person wasn't, even if they are blowing that number out of the water, what are you proposing? The recommendations are out there, if a person is unaware or even aware but chooses to ignore them, what are you proposing to do about it? The process is in place to update nutritional information on packaged food so a person can differentiate between added and natural sugars. What else are you suggesting, and how does this directly impact you?
Potentially risky, how so?and the wheel in the sky keeps on turning...
I'd like to not repeat the exact same things I mentioned earlier in this same thread with regards to the immune system, so I won't expound on that.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I guess my memory is off, as I thought your maintenance was around 3600.Except 100 grams is my 10%.
There isn't anything in particular that I propose to do about that or am suggesting. But I think it's important that those who aren't following the recommendations know it is potentially risky.WinoGelato wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Some of us agree with the recommendation to make added sugar no more than 10% of one's daily calories. And if it's over that on a regular basis, I'd say that may be risky depending on the rest of the diet, though I realize that's more so my opinion. I'd say it's relevant to the conversation given that we were talking about how much sugar is in each of our diets, and the conclusion was that most of us eat a reasonable amount of sugar. I don't think anyone that posted how much they were eating was eating in excess of the 10% daily calories limit for added sugar on a regular basis. Now when it comes to 100 grams of added sugar, that's a different story.WinoGelato wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »If I'm not mistaken, there is an individual who has posted in this thread (but did not state his consumption here) who consumes around 100 grams of added sugar a day, which is more than the rest of us.
I fail to see how the intake of one person posting in this thread is at all relevant to the context of this discussion (although admittedly I am not sure what the point of any of this is anymore). What clarity does that provide, what direction does that take us in? Without knowing the context of the individual's overall diet, then flippantly commenting that they eat more than 100g of sugar is not helpful or germane to the conversation. I also don't know how looking at ANYONE's individual intake helps the conversation, whether you are talking about someone consuming less than 10 g or greater than 100g. Did someone say that no one ever consumes more than 100g of sugar each day? If they did, and this proves them wrong - ok, good on you, but I don't think that's what happening here. It seems like you are just looking for a "gotcha" but maybe I'm missing something.
Ok, but still, to what end? You and others agree with the 10% recommendation. That's fine. I actually don't have a problem with guidelines to provide people some numbers to aim for, but it is still up to an individual and their personal choice whether they follow those guidelines or not. You are adhering to that. I think I do too, but I don't closely track sugar. Hornsby probably is as well, based on his total calorie intake. But even if a person wasn't, even if they are blowing that number out of the water, what are you proposing? The recommendations are out there, if a person is unaware or even aware but chooses to ignore them, what are you proposing to do about it? The process is in place to update nutritional information on packaged food so a person can differentiate between added and natural sugars. What else are you suggesting, and how does this directly impact you?
Potentially risky, how so?and the wheel in the sky keeps on turning...
I'd like to not repeat the exact same things I mentioned earlier in this same thread with regards to the immune system, so I won't expound on that.
I think we would all appreciate if we didn't continue to beat the same poor dead horses again in this thread, especially ones that were based on conjecture, assumptions, and correlative associations at best...
6 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
I guess my memory is off, as I thought your maintenance was around 3600.Except 100 grams is my 10%.
There isn't anything in particular that I propose to do about that or am suggesting. But I think it's important that those who aren't following the recommendations know it is potentially risky.WinoGelato wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Some of us agree with the recommendation to make added sugar no more than 10% of one's daily calories. And if it's over that on a regular basis, I'd say that may be risky depending on the rest of the diet, though I realize that's more so my opinion. I'd say it's relevant to the conversation given that we were talking about how much sugar is in each of our diets, and the conclusion was that most of us eat a reasonable amount of sugar. I don't think anyone that posted how much they were eating was eating in excess of the 10% daily calories limit for added sugar on a regular basis. Now when it comes to 100 grams of added sugar, that's a different story.WinoGelato wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »If I'm not mistaken, there is an individual who has posted in this thread (but did not state his consumption here) who consumes around 100 grams of added sugar a day, which is more than the rest of us.
I fail to see how the intake of one person posting in this thread is at all relevant to the context of this discussion (although admittedly I am not sure what the point of any of this is anymore). What clarity does that provide, what direction does that take us in? Without knowing the context of the individual's overall diet, then flippantly commenting that they eat more than 100g of sugar is not helpful or germane to the conversation. I also don't know how looking at ANYONE's individual intake helps the conversation, whether you are talking about someone consuming less than 10 g or greater than 100g. Did someone say that no one ever consumes more than 100g of sugar each day? If they did, and this proves them wrong - ok, good on you, but I don't think that's what happening here. It seems like you are just looking for a "gotcha" but maybe I'm missing something.
Ok, but still, to what end? You and others agree with the 10% recommendation. That's fine. I actually don't have a problem with guidelines to provide people some numbers to aim for, but it is still up to an individual and their personal choice whether they follow those guidelines or not. You are adhering to that. I think I do too, but I don't closely track sugar. Hornsby probably is as well, based on his total calorie intake. But even if a person wasn't, even if they are blowing that number out of the water, what are you proposing? The recommendations are out there, if a person is unaware or even aware but chooses to ignore them, what are you proposing to do about it? The process is in place to update nutritional information on packaged food so a person can differentiate between added and natural sugars. What else are you suggesting, and how does this directly impact you?
walking across the street is also potentially risky ...0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions