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

Options
13334353739

Replies

  • ForecasterJason
    ForecasterJason Posts: 2,577 Member
    Options
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    WinoGelato 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 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.

  • J72FIT
    J72FIT Posts: 5,948 Member
    Options
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    Hornsby wrote: »
    Except 100 grams is my 10%.
    I guess my memory is off, as I thought your maintenance was around 3600.


    WinoGelato wrote: »
    WinoGelato 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.

    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?
    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.

    walking across the street is also potentially risky ...
    As is breathing...
  • J72FIT
    J72FIT Posts: 5,948 Member
    Options
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    WinoGelato 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 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.

    It's not as hard as you think...
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    It is not hard to get enough magnesium.
  • J72FIT
    J72FIT Posts: 5,948 Member
    Options
  • J72FIT
    J72FIT Posts: 5,948 Member
    edited July 2016
    Options
    Sorry to the folks who would pass on bananas and dark chocolate because of the sugar, your magnesium levels are going to be critical...
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,139 Member
    Options
    J72FIT wrote: »
    Sorry to the folks who would pass on bananas and dark chocolate because of the sugar, your magnesium levels are going to be critical...

    so low sugar consumption leads to low magnesium consumption which leads to not hitting micros...interesting..
  • Raptor2763
    Raptor2763 Posts: 387 Member
    Options
    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.
  • chocolate_owl
    chocolate_owl Posts: 1,695 Member
    Options
    Hornsby wrote: »
    Except 100 grams is my 10%.
    I guess my memory is off, as I thought your maintenance was around 3600.


    WinoGelato wrote: »
    WinoGelato 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.

    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?
    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.

    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.
  • J72FIT
    J72FIT Posts: 5,948 Member
    Options
    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...
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    Also, what's wrong with some fruit or veg at breakfast or after a workout?
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,139 Member
    Options
    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?????

  • Hornsby
    Hornsby Posts: 10,322 Member
    Options
    Hornsby wrote: »
    Except 100 grams is my 10%.
    I guess my memory is off, as I thought your maintenance was around 3600.


    WinoGelato wrote: »
    WinoGelato 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.

    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?
    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.

    3600 was a while back. It's summer. Been maintaining on 4K for a couple months.

  • nutmegoreo
    nutmegoreo Posts: 15,532 Member
    Options
    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?
  • cerise_noir
    cerise_noir Posts: 5,468 Member
    Options
    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.
    :lol:

    Oh, I'm not Dean Winchester, by the way, but I sure do love pudding.
  • sunnybeaches105
    sunnybeaches105 Posts: 2,831 Member
    Options
    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 nutrition
  • sunnybeaches105
    sunnybeaches105 Posts: 2,831 Member
    Options
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    WinoGelato 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 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.

    Nope. Not hard.
  • sunnybeaches105
    sunnybeaches105 Posts: 2,831 Member
    Options
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    queenliz99 wrote: »
    Hornsby wrote: »
    Except 100 grams is my 10%.
    I guess my memory is off, as I thought your maintenance was around 3600.


    WinoGelato wrote: »
    WinoGelato 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.

    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?
    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.

    Potentially risky, how so?

    J72FIT wrote: »
    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
  • Gallowmere1984
    Gallowmere1984 Posts: 6,626 Member
    Options
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    queenliz99 wrote: »
    Hornsby wrote: »
    Except 100 grams is my 10%.
    I guess my memory is off, as I thought your maintenance was around 3600.


    WinoGelato wrote: »
    WinoGelato 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.

    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?
    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.

    Potentially risky, how so?

    J72FIT wrote: »
    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.