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
Replies
-
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 -
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.
They shouldn't be, as the evidence is they aren't in ketosis.2 -
Christine_72 wrote: »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..
Because it is both entertaining and hilarious to see just how many topics can be crammed into one little post.
0 -
sugar is sugar as long as u get it from healthy source u are good0
-
I eat quite a bit of fruit daily and it doesn't really give me an issue, just make sure you are logging it and fitting it into your calorie goals for the day if you are worried about it.0
-
I am removing my comment, (cant seem to find the delete button) but i see this thread went off the rails a while ago. I'll try another one.
0 -
So maybe this is the wrong 'sugar' thread to ask, but it's the first one to come up on my line of sight.
My question is this: how do I differentiate the two different types of sugars, or is all of it bad and still need to stay under the 26g a day limit, which, btw is hard as heck! I am usually double that by the end of the day. MFP doesn't seem to separate it out.
(26 grams of sugar is the suggested allotment of grams of sugar per day for women).
If I eat a piece of fruit (let's say granny smith apple) it has 17g of sugar in it. But an apple isnt "bad" for you. Now, if i ate some candy that also had 17g of sugar in it, that would be bad, because of it being a processed sugar, correct?
MFP's goal is 15% of total calories, so should not be 26 g, period.
The 26 g goal is based on something like 5% of maintenance calories (percentage is better than grams -- the gram numbers are always just efforts to convert a recommendation to average calories and people's maintenance varies).
Anyway, the 10% of calories recommendation from the US Dietary Guidelines and the WHO, among other sources, as well as the 5% is even better recommendation from the WHO apply only to ADDED sugar (and stuff like juice and honey), not all sugar, which is what MFP's is about.
The WHO recommendation assumes that more added sugar means more calories overall (often from the fat that the sugar gets packaged with) and that's the reason for the limit, not sugar being uniquely bad. Therefore, I take it with a grain of salt but on the whole it's decent advice to help ensure you are eating a nutrient-dense diet.
The higher MFP number is intended to account for the fact that people also eat sugar in foods like fruit, veg, and dairy, but is too low if you eat a lot of these (especially lots of fruit), since people in the US (and UK and probably a number of other countries) don't on average eat that many veg and fruits. There is no credible evidence that eating a healthful balanced diet with adequate protein and healthy fats that also happens to be high in sugar from fruits and veg is a problem in any way.
Therefore, if you are going to try to use the 26 g number (which I wouldn't), I'd subtract the sugars from foods like fruits and veg and dairy.0 -
I am removing my comment, (cant seem to find the delete button) but i see this thread went off the rails a while ago. I'll try another one.
Ah, too bad, but the answer stands if you are interested or want to discuss.
Oh, I might as well add:If I eat a piece of fruit (let's say granny smith apple) it has 17g of sugar in it. But an apple isnt "bad" for you. Now, if i ate some candy that also had 17g of sugar in it, that would be bad, because of it being a processed sugar, correct?
No -- the sugar is quite likely the same. Table sugar is "processed" in that it is taken from plants (sugarcane and sugarbeets) and used in other things. (In candy it might well be HFCS, but that's also not a particularly meaningful difference -- 55% fructose instead of 50% in sucrose.)
Why an apple is different than candy (and I agree it is) has to do with the rest of what's included. Candy is either nothing but sugar (so it basically just contributes calories) or sugar plus fat (often sat or trans fat, although the latter is getting less common), and tends not to have any fiber or micronutrients. An apple with have fiber and micros in addition. Also, the apple has a lot fewer calories by volume (due to water content, as well as fiber), which for many people makes it more filling.1 -
I stick to 2-3 strawberries every morning. In the afternoon if I want a snack I have some cheese and no more than 12 red grapes. Sometimes I add a quarter of an orange to my protein shake. If I buy bananas I buy the very very small ones and I do not have one every day0
-
I stick to 2-3 strawberries every morning. In the afternoon if I want a snack I have some cheese and no more than 12 red grapes. Sometimes I add a quarter of an orange to my protein shake. If I buy bananas I buy the very very small ones and I do not have one every day
That's neat.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 913 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions