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
-
It's hard to get enough of some micros like magnesium, and those who lead highly active lifestyles require more. So I'd venture to say that most people as it is aren't getting enough of some nutrients, so a high sugar intake becomes a problem in that regard.lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
0 -
As is breathing...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 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
It's hard to get enough of some micros like magnesium, and those who lead highly active lifestyles require more. So I'd venture to say that most people as it is aren't getting enough of some nutrients, so a high sugar intake becomes a problem in that regard.lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
It's not as hard as you think...0 -
It is not hard to get enough magnesium.0
-
-
Sorry to the folks who would pass on bananas and dark chocolate because of the sugar, your magnesium levels are going to be critical...4
-
Bear in mind there's a difference between natural and refined sugar. The former is fine, as long as it's in moderation and NOT the first meal of the day OR immediately following a workout. The latter is not fine, nor will it ever be.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?
So 10% added sugar is fine, but heaven forbid he eat 11%.
Also, given that studies have found 100g of fructose (and sometimes more, depending on the study) to not be harmful for highly active people and athletes, I think Hornsby's doing just fine.4 -
Raptor2763 wrote: »Bear in mind there's a difference between natural and refined sugar. The former is fine, as long as it's in moderation and NOT the first meal of the day OR immediately following a workout. The latter is not fine, nor will it ever be.
Sorry but incorrect...1 -
Also, what's wrong with some fruit or veg at breakfast or after a workout?1
-
Raptor2763 wrote: »Bear in mind there's a difference between natural and refined sugar. The former is fine, as long as it's in moderation and NOT the first meal of the day OR immediately following a workout. The latter is not fine, nor will it ever be.
Why can't you eat natural sugar in the morning or after a workout?????
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?
3600 was a while back. It's summer. Been maintaining on 4K for a couple months.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Also, what's wrong with some fruit or veg at breakfast or after a workout?
Oh crap. I had a spinach-banana protein smoothie for breakfast.
How long do I have?0 -
Raptor2763 wrote: »Bear in mind there's a difference between natural and refined sugar. The former is fine, as long as it's in moderation and NOT the first meal of the day OR immediately following a workout. The latter is not fine, nor will it ever be.
Crap. I just had 2, yes 2 molasses cookies. Imma gonna die.
Oh, I'm not Dean Winchester, by the way, but I sure do love pudding.0 -
I'll just keep sitting over here with my results while others make assumptions about my sugar consumption.
Carry on...6 -
Raptor2763 wrote: »Bear in mind there's a difference between natural and refined sugar. The former is fine, as long as it's in moderation and NOT the first meal of the day OR immediately following a workout. The latter is not fine, nor will it ever be.
Bear in mind that evidence matters in evidence-based nutrition1 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
It's hard to get enough of some micros like magnesium, and those who lead highly active lifestyles require more. So I'd venture to say that most people as it is aren't getting enough of some nutrients, so a high sugar intake becomes a problem in that regard.lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
Nope. Not hard.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »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...
That's all that has been presented by the "sugar is the devil" crowd. The ones that believe sugar magically changes into a bogeyman the minute it's removed from the beet or cane3 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »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...
That's all that has been presented by the "sugar is the devil" crowd. The ones that believe sugar magically changes into a bogeyman the minute it's removed from the beet or cane
So, once removed from it's natural habitat, it becomes useless, and potentially harmful? Hmmmm. So sugar is like a lion, or bear?
Now I want a Simba burger.2 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »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...
That's all that has been presented by the "sugar is the devil" crowd. The ones that believe sugar magically changes into a bogeyman the minute it's removed from the beet or cane
So, once removed from it's natural habitat, it becomes useless, and potentially harmful? Hmmmm. So sugar is like a lion, or bear?
Now I want a Simba burger.
Just sprinkle it with magic fairy dust first1 -
-
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »
Lmao!0 -
I'm curious to know why y'all are prolonging this thread, when it's glaringly obvious that neither side is going to back down or take the other seriously? And please don't say you're doing it for the lurkers..0
-
Lurkers. Lol0
-
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »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...
That's all that has been presented by the "sugar is the devil" crowd. The ones that believe sugar magically changes into a bogeyman the minute it's removed from the beet or cane
So, once removed from it's natural habitat, it becomes useless, and potentially harmful? Hmmmm. So sugar is like a lion, or bear?
Now I want a Simba burger.
The current thinking seems to be that fructose is harmful to liver health past a daily level. One the liver is overloaded it still has to take the fructose and that fructose will get converted to lipids with some nasty byproducts like uric acid. I've read 50g/day and 60g/day but I don't know how that level has been determined. With whole fruit it appears that the fiber and other compounds in the fruit blunt the small intestine's ability to absorb fructose, limiting how much actually gets into the bloodstream and then too the liver. Fats do slowdown digestion but I haven't found any studies or claims yet that fats actually blunt the absorption of fructose. In any case most people are getting refined sugars from sources that have none of the protective elements, that is mostly sweetened beverages and processed foods. Ironically those are the easiest places to cut back on sugar.
I've also read that if the liver is depleted of glycogen stores then fructose is probably beneficial at that point. That isn't a normal state for most humans though.
In truth, 50g of fructose is really a very large amount to consume in a single day. I was well below that amount even including all the fruit I eat. Even if I assume 100% of fructose is aborbed from fruits (even glucose isn't 100%) then I would be in the 20g to 25g / day range for fructose. Diets heavy in processed foods and heavy in sweetened beverages likely do get past 50g/day of fructose. Granted it is possible to eat your way there with fruit too, but at least that would take some effort.
A couple of studies that support fruit consumption is safe.
http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f5001
http://www.bmj.com/content/349/bmj.g4490/
0 -
1
-
Well that's debatable. First Nation and Inuit people don't consume a lot of sugar and they deal with a lot of health issue and shorter life spans.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.
Read between the lines, what he is really saying is, "Kill your self if you want too..."
Funny.
Reading between the lines of your post say you just enjoy being a jerk. Trying to kill yourself with sugar would be very slow and give a prolonged miserable existence before you succeeded. However just because it isn't a good way to kill yourself doesn't mean it is healthly. No one dies from not having refined sugar in their diet.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
2 -
Well that's debatable. First Nation and Inuit people don't consume a lot of sugar and they deal with a lot of health issue and shorter life spans.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.
Read between the lines, what he is really saying is, "Kill your self if you want too..."
Funny.
Reading between the lines of your post say you just enjoy being a jerk. Trying to kill yourself with sugar would be very slow and give a prolonged miserable existence before you succeeded. However just because it isn't a good way to kill yourself doesn't mean it is healthly. No one dies from not having refined sugar in their diet.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
To be fair, neither of those populations get a lot of preventative or even curative medicine in their daily lives either.1 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »
Well that's debatable. First Nation and Inuit people don't consume a lot of sugar and they deal with a lot of health issue and shorter life spans.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.
Read between the lines, what he is really saying is, "Kill your self if you want too..."
Funny.
Reading between the lines of your post say you just enjoy being a jerk. Trying to kill yourself with sugar would be very slow and give a prolonged miserable existence before you succeeded. However just because it isn't a good way to kill yourself doesn't mean it is healthly. No one dies from not having refined sugar in their diet.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
To be fair, neither of those populations get a lot of preventative or even curative medicine in their daily lives either.
It is also interesting that those groups are often held up of examples showing how natural a ketosis based diet is. That also doesn't have much to do with fruit.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