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.
Sugar - the sweet truth
Replies
-
BillMcKay1 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »BillMcKay1 wrote: »Unlike almost every other classification you find on a nutrition label, you do not get the % of daily recommended consumption on sugar for a serving of thay product. Why?
As to "in moderation" that might be easier for a person calculate if the sugar lobby didnt do everything possible to make sure people dont know what that is, including pushing the US congress to withhold money from the WHO if they went ahead and set a daily recommended consumption.
Sugar in moderation is fine. Sugar industry acting like tobacco companies. Not so much.
The recommended amount on labels is the amount you should be striving for at least if you're an average person eating 2000 calories to maintain.
There's no specific amount of carbs/sugar you need to be striving for apart from "whatever is left once you filled your protein and fat needs".
You act like the majority of the people out there even know what their macro needs are. Having recommended guidelines on consumption is about all the majority of people have to go on. I find it hilarious the disconnect between people here and what they think the average person knows about nutrition.
I fail to see your point. In this age of information flow, their ignorance is no one's fault but their own, unless they are literally Mowgli, and in that case, I doubt he'd be much concerned about macros anyway, what with the whole being as active as some animals most days.0 -
There are no recommended macros, just a large range (which aren't a good range anyway, as they'd exclude LCHF), which can be done perfectly healthfully, of course. So it's not reasonable to put it on the label (you could put minimum protein, but IMO that would understand what the ideal is).
There was not a recommended amount for added sugar (or "added sugar" at all) on the labels until the new labels (which are being rolled out in 2017, I believe). There will be a % of recommended limit on those, I believe.
There's no % of recommended limit for total sugar, since there's no recommended limit for those. Doesn't matter if you get enough of the other things you need and stay within calories.
I doubt anyone pays attention to those percentages anyway, they are silly in that they are based on 2000 calories and we are all different as to TDEE.1 -
3dogsrunning wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »P.S. I don't think sugar from whole foods are a problem. I also don't think free sugars are a problem in small, moderate amounts. But I think the term "moderation" is meaningless and a lot of people who think their sugar consumption is moderate are actually eating excessive, harmful amounts.
This is a valid point. Words like "moderation" and "junkfood" often get thrown about without any real context or explanation. Almost without fail, when asked to define either, you'll get a "you know what I mean" response. That's not exactly helpful to someone who hasn't the slightest clue, or may actually be incredibly misinformed to begin with.
I disagree. There has been a lot of talk about moderation and how we define it here.
My personal definition: moderation means that your consumption neither causes you to go over calories nor replaces other, more important, nutritional needs. So moderate added sugar, to me, would be an amount that (along with the fat that normally goes with it) does not result in excessive calories, inadequate protein or healthy fat, inadequate fiber, inadequate vegetables and other sources of micronutrients. Since I'm small and older, for me that's not a huge amount, but much more on a day when I do a long run or bike ride (one reason I feel no worries about fueling those with some sports products on occasion, like gels, as well as including some more enjoyable sugar+fat in my diet, like ice cream).
Looking back on my childhood and the cultural norms at the time, I think we used to do this just naturally, as part of how people understood what a sensible diet should be. If some have gone away from that, that's not the fault of sugar or mean that there's something overly difficult about being sensible and moderate re consumption. Some just don't want to or choose to.
"Here" is the important word that you mentioned. I wasn't referring to MFP users (who by and large have better nutrition knowledge than average). I was talking about everyday, run of the mill conversation. As packerjohn pointed out, what passes for moderation, given recent social norms, is actually a bit excessive, especially using the definition that you just gave.
Yeah, that is an interesting distinction. In a recent sugar debate thread, the people defending moderate intake of sugar were accused of being sugar addicts. When someone decided to check out their diaries (some had open diaries, one opened it just to be evaluated), they were all consuming moderate amounts of sugar.
I was one of those with the open diary, and I couldn't believe that it was such a surprise to people that those advocating that there is nothing wrong with sugar in moderation are actually, wait for it... eating sugar in moderation. The expectation seemed to be that anyone who says sugar is ok must be mainlining pixie sticks.
6 -
BillMcKay1 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »BillMcKay1 wrote: »Unlike almost every other classification you find on a nutrition label, you do not get the % of daily recommended consumption on sugar for a serving of thay product. Why?
As to "in moderation" that might be easier for a person calculate if the sugar lobby didnt do everything possible to make sure people dont know what that is, including pushing the US congress to withhold money from the WHO if they went ahead and set a daily recommended consumption.
Sugar in moderation is fine. Sugar industry acting like tobacco companies. Not so much.
The recommended amount on labels is the amount you should be striving for at least if you're an average person eating 2000 calories to maintain.
There's no specific amount of carbs/sugar you need to be striving for apart from "whatever is left once you filled your protein and fat needs".
You act like the majority of the people out there even know what their macro needs are. Having recommended guidelines on consumption is about all the majority of people have to go on. I find it hilarious the disconnect between people here and what they think the average person knows about nutrition.
Those recommended guidelines are supposed to be the minimum needs.2 -
stevencloser wrote: »BillMcKay1 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »BillMcKay1 wrote: »Unlike almost every other classification you find on a nutrition label, you do not get the % of daily recommended consumption on sugar for a serving of thay product. Why?
As to "in moderation" that might be easier for a person calculate if the sugar lobby didnt do everything possible to make sure people dont know what that is, including pushing the US congress to withhold money from the WHO if they went ahead and set a daily recommended consumption.
Sugar in moderation is fine. Sugar industry acting like tobacco companies. Not so much.
The recommended amount on labels is the amount you should be striving for at least if you're an average person eating 2000 calories to maintain.
There's no specific amount of carbs/sugar you need to be striving for apart from "whatever is left once you filled your protein and fat needs".
You act like the majority of the people out there even know what their macro needs are. Having recommended guidelines on consumption is about all the majority of people have to go on. I find it hilarious the disconnect between people here and what they think the average person knows about nutrition.
Those recommended guidelines are supposed to be the minimum needs.
The problem is that there's no real distinction between minimum and maximum, as the world's waistline can attest to. Well, that and people not having the sense to put the spoon down.0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Food is far from scarce, it's cheap as hell, and we keep being beaten over the head with the "being overweight is okay" hammer by the feels media, while actual scientists get ignored in the background.
But I can see from your avatar that all this hasn't stopped you from lifting weights. So what's the problem? Other people make bad choices every day for all kinds of reasons. You're only responsible for you.0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Food is far from scarce, it's cheap as hell, and we keep being beaten over the head with the "being overweight is okay" hammer by the feels media, while actual scientists get ignored in the background.
But I can see from your avatar that all this hasn't stopped you from lifting weights. So what's the problem? Other people make bad choices every day for all kinds of reasons. You're only responsible for you.
First: that picture's about three years old. I got lazy as hell, kept dropping weight purely through caloric restriction, and couldn't pull 495 now if my life depended upon it.
Second: I wasn't making excuses for anyone. In fact, I am VERY much the opposite, in that I shun those who would shirk personal responsibility, especially those who like to blame "ze ebil corporations".
My point was primarily that until we see an actual culture shift in some form, we can expect the rates of various obesity related diseases to keep climbing. Somewhere along the way, it became okay to be fat as *kitten*, so long as you're not "too fat"; a line which moves arbitrarily depending upon the one viewing the case.0 -
What does any of that have to do with fear mongering about sugar, or about debating whether sugar is the devil and has magical powers to make people obese, above and beyond its calories?
I feel like sure, there are fat people. If they feel bad about it, I hope they work it out. If they want to feel good about it, more power to them. Either way they can do their thing while I do mine. I'm currently trying to put on weight in the form of upper body muscle. As a cyclist, I can bench press my laptop but I can leg press a double decker bus.2 -
NorthCascades wrote: »What does any of that have to do with fear mongering about sugar, or about debating whether sugar is the devil and has magical powers to make people obese, above and beyond its calories?
Not much of anything, but the quote that you responded to from me, was primarily in response to this line from the quote I was responding to: "It's that people, for whatever reason, choose not to exercise restraint when it comes to diet."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
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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