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 Addiction Myths
Replies
-
Hawaiian_Iceberg wrote: »In my humble opinion the obesity levels we are seeing in the Western world have a lot to do with the increased sugar levels in our food. (but not the only one)
Globally we consume roughly 173 million tonnes of sugar per year. That is 24 kg per person on average! In the US that's apparently almost 44Kg per person! That's over 170,000 calories which is over 460 per day! That's very high compared to historical levels and has been raising steadily for the last century at least!
Now don't get me wrong I'm not a anti-sugar zelot or a pro-fat crusader, in fact, just because saturated fat might not be as bad as I once thought I see no reason to stick butter in my coffee .
I genuinely believe that a majority of people have no clue how calorific their food is or what their energy needs are.
sugar consumption is actually down ....
No it's not. Not even close. The sale of sugar in shops is down. True. However consumption continues to grow.2 -
NorthCascades wrote: »This is a terrible article. Somebody "debunked" the "myth" that sugar is empty calories by pointing out that it has calories. Stupidest thing I've read in a long time.
how so? If something provides energy, it can't be empty. If anything the empty calorie argument is the dump one.
I think some call sugar an empty calorie because it just has calories.
I guess we could call diet soda "empty flavor" because it just provides flavor... well, and water. And maybe on occasion some micronutrients.
If you can derive energy out of something it is not empty.
Possibly. You could just as easily say the calories in sugar are empty of anything else though. They are just calories.
and what do calories contain?
This is like arguing that a bucket with nothing in it is not empty because it is a bucket.
There are calories in sugar, which some (the majority) will use as a fuel source, but that is all it is - calories.
One could call it empty energy that can raise a gram of water by 1C.
All it has is energy (calories). Sugar calories have nothing else to them.
That's all calories are regardless of source. Energy.
But I get what you're saying, that there isn't anything to sugar other than calories. That isn't strictly true, though. Carbohydrates aren't just metabolized for energy, the molecules are also used in anabolic and other reactions. That's why the definition of 'empty calorie' has to specify devoid of vitamins, minerals, fiber, essential fats and proteins, I suppose. No macro is used solely to produce energy and for nothing else.
Carbs are not empty calories. Vegetables and fruit have a LOT of nutrition in them. Grains have some nutrition too although I think it is often harder for us to access. But I do think sugar is empty calories. Sucrose does not have anything beyond energy, I believe.
It's redeeming quality is that it tastes really good.
But most people aren't eating straight sugar by the spoonful, just like most people aren't eating straight fat in isolation. I do make things like roasted carrots or butternut squash or sweet potatoes where I drizzle them with olive oil, and add a bit of cumin, chili powder and brown sugar. In that dish - is the sugar bad? Is the fat bad? Are either of those empty calories, since they also are being served with vegetables? Could I make the dish without the sugar or the oil? Sure, I suppose. But why do I need to?
If I have no medical reason to restrict sugar, or fat, and am eating both of them in moderation in my diet - then neither of them are bad (for me). We (the MFP community at large, not you and I specifically) always seem to get into this weird debate where we isolate individual ingredients and try to determine if they are good or bad on the whole, without looking at the overall context of a person's diet. Even when we talk about the whole diet of an individual, it can vary quite a bit from the diet of an elite endurance athlete to the diet of a person who is managing a chronic health condition to the diet of a person who is just trying for a generally healthy, active lifestyle to the diet of a person who hasn't begun to make changes yet. Each one of those diets would be different, so why do we try to apply blanket generalizations like sugar is bad, or sugar is nothing but empty calories, without offering specific, helpful advice to the individual? I get that some people, like you, have a reason to limit sugar and carbs in general, and subsequently increasing fat consumption has health benefits for you. But rather than focusing on why some people do need to make dietary changes and limit certain things - sweeping generalizations such that sugar is BAD for all people, or that it is "empty calories" really isn't the case - when looking at consumption in context.
6 -
Hawaiian_Iceberg wrote: »Hawaiian_Iceberg wrote: »In my humble opinion the obesity levels we are seeing in the Western world have a lot to do with the increased sugar levels in our food. (but not the only one)
Globally we consume roughly 173 million tonnes of sugar per year. That is 24 kg per person on average! In the US that's apparently almost 44Kg per person! That's over 170,000 calories which is over 460 per day! That's very high compared to historical levels and has been raising steadily for the last century at least!
Now don't get me wrong I'm not a anti-sugar zelot or a pro-fat crusader, in fact, just because saturated fat might not be as bad as I once thought I see no reason to stick butter in my coffee .
I genuinely believe that a majority of people have no clue how calorific their food is or what their energy needs are.
sugar consumption is actually down ....
No it's not. Not even close. The sale of sugar in shops is down. True. However consumption continues to grow.
according to this article, it's down and has been going down...
https://www.statnews.com/2016/09/20/sugar-consumption-americans/
quote from the article:
'On average, Americans’ total consumption of caloric sweeteners like refined cane sugar and high-fructose corn syrup is down 15 percent from its peak in 1999, according to government data. That’s when we consumed an average of 111 grams of sugar a day (423 calories).'3 -
Hawaiian_Iceberg wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
No, they're not empty in that sense. They're empty in the sense of pointless or unhelpful. They may have some food value, but not enough to give them a meaningful nutritional role in the context in which they're being discussed.That's why the definition of 'empty calorie' has to specify devoid of vitamins, minerals, fiber, essential fats and proteins, I suppose. No macro is used solely to produce energy and for nothing else.
Again, cardio.
That's why dfwesq said within the context in which they're being discussed.
Firstly the term 'empty calorie' makes no sense. A calorie is a unit of measurement for energy. So talking about empty units is a bit silly.
However, the context in which the term has been used is to help fat people understand that the 2 liter bottle of Coke they're chugging down in front of the TV has little nutritional value.
That same 2l of Coke would be very useful to me if I was on a 6 hour cycle ride and was looking for an easy way to refuel. However, I'd be unlikely to use the term "empty calories" in that context.
if you want to argue that sugar should not crowd out other nutrients, then yes I agree; however, that does not make it empty, toxic, etc...
Of course it's not toxic and anyone one arguing that is clearly mistaken.
However many many people are gaining weight ,in part ,due to excessive sugars in their diets.1 -
Hawaiian_Iceberg wrote: »Hawaiian_Iceberg wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
No, they're not empty in that sense. They're empty in the sense of pointless or unhelpful. They may have some food value, but not enough to give them a meaningful nutritional role in the context in which they're being discussed.That's why the definition of 'empty calorie' has to specify devoid of vitamins, minerals, fiber, essential fats and proteins, I suppose. No macro is used solely to produce energy and for nothing else.
Again, cardio.
That's why dfwesq said within the context in which they're being discussed.
Firstly the term 'empty calorie' makes no sense. A calorie is a unit of measurement for energy. So talking about empty units is a bit silly.
However, the context in which the term has been used is to help fat people understand that the 2 liter bottle of Coke they're chugging down in front of the TV has little nutritional value.
That same 2l of Coke would be very useful to me if I was on a 6 hour cycle ride and was looking for an easy way to refuel. However, I'd be unlikely to use the term "empty calories" in that context.
if you want to argue that sugar should not crowd out other nutrients, then yes I agree; however, that does not make it empty, toxic, etc...
Of course it's not toxic and anyone one arguing that is clearly mistaken.
However many many people are gaining weight ,in part ,due to excessive sugars caloriesin their diets.
corrected9 -
Hawaiian_Iceberg wrote: »Hawaiian_Iceberg wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
No, they're not empty in that sense. They're empty in the sense of pointless or unhelpful. They may have some food value, but not enough to give them a meaningful nutritional role in the context in which they're being discussed.That's why the definition of 'empty calorie' has to specify devoid of vitamins, minerals, fiber, essential fats and proteins, I suppose. No macro is used solely to produce energy and for nothing else.
Again, cardio.
That's why dfwesq said within the context in which they're being discussed.
Firstly the term 'empty calorie' makes no sense. A calorie is a unit of measurement for energy. So talking about empty units is a bit silly.
However, the context in which the term has been used is to help fat people understand that the 2 liter bottle of Coke they're chugging down in front of the TV has little nutritional value.
That same 2l of Coke would be very useful to me if I was on a 6 hour cycle ride and was looking for an easy way to refuel. However, I'd be unlikely to use the term "empty calories" in that context.
if you want to argue that sugar should not crowd out other nutrients, then yes I agree; however, that does not make it empty, toxic, etc...
Of course it's not toxic and anyone one arguing that is clearly mistaken.
However many many people are gaining weight ,in part ,due to excessive sugars caloriesin their diets.
Fixed it for you.8 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Hawaiian_Iceberg wrote: »Hawaiian_Iceberg wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
No, they're not empty in that sense. They're empty in the sense of pointless or unhelpful. They may have some food value, but not enough to give them a meaningful nutritional role in the context in which they're being discussed.That's why the definition of 'empty calorie' has to specify devoid of vitamins, minerals, fiber, essential fats and proteins, I suppose. No macro is used solely to produce energy and for nothing else.
Again, cardio.
That's why dfwesq said within the context in which they're being discussed.
Firstly the term 'empty calorie' makes no sense. A calorie is a unit of measurement for energy. So talking about empty units is a bit silly.
However, the context in which the term has been used is to help fat people understand that the 2 liter bottle of Coke they're chugging down in front of the TV has little nutritional value.
That same 2l of Coke would be very useful to me if I was on a 6 hour cycle ride and was looking for an easy way to refuel. However, I'd be unlikely to use the term "empty calories" in that context.
if you want to argue that sugar should not crowd out other nutrients, then yes I agree; however, that does not make it empty, toxic, etc...
Of course it's not toxic and anyone one arguing that is clearly mistaken.
However many many people are gaining weight ,in part ,due to excessive sugars caloriesin their diets.
Fixed it for you.
LOL ....read my mind...4 -
Hawaiian_Iceberg wrote: »Hawaiian_Iceberg wrote: »In my humble opinion the obesity levels we are seeing in the Western world have a lot to do with the increased sugar levels in our food. (but not the only one)
Globally we consume roughly 173 million tonnes of sugar per year. That is 24 kg per person on average! In the US that's apparently almost 44Kg per person! That's over 170,000 calories which is over 460 per day! That's very high compared to historical levels and has been raising steadily for the last century at least!
Now don't get me wrong I'm not a anti-sugar zelot or a pro-fat crusader, in fact, just because saturated fat might not be as bad as I once thought I see no reason to stick butter in my coffee .
I genuinely believe that a majority of people have no clue how calorific their food is or what their energy needs are.
sugar consumption is actually down ....
No it's not. Not even close. The sale of sugar in shops is down. True. However consumption continues to grow.
according to this article, it's down and has been going down...
https://www.statnews.com/2016/09/20/sugar-consumption-americans/
quote from the article:
'On average, Americans’ total consumption of caloric sweeteners like refined cane sugar and high-fructose corn syrup is down 15 percent from its peak in 1999, according to government data. That’s when we consumed an average of 111 grams of sugar a day (423 calories).'
Sugar consumption in the US is down from it's peak but it is still several times what organizations like the WHO, CDC, Harvard Med, etc recommend.1 -
NorthCascades wrote: »This is a terrible article. Somebody "debunked" the "myth" that sugar is empty calories by pointing out that it has calories. Stupidest thing I've read in a long time.
how so? If something provides energy, it can't be empty. If anything the empty calorie argument is the dump one.
I think some call sugar an empty calorie because it just has calories.
I guess we could call diet soda "empty flavor" because it just provides flavor... well, and water. And maybe on occasion some micronutrients.
If you can derive energy out of something it is not empty.
Possibly. You could just as easily say the calories in sugar are empty of anything else though. They are just calories.
and what do calories contain?
This is like arguing that a bucket with nothing in it is not empty because it is a bucket.
There are calories in sugar, which some (the majority) will use as a fuel source, but that is all it is - calories.
One could call it empty energy that can raise a gram of water by 1C. All it has is energy (calories). Sugar calories have nothing else to them.
That's all calories are regardless of source. Energy.
But I get what you're saying, that there isn't anything to sugar other than calories. That isn't strictly true, though. Carbohydrates aren't just metabolized for energy, the molecules are also used in anabolic and other reactions. That's why the definition of 'empty calorie' has to specify devoid of vitamins, minerals, fiber, essential fats and proteins, I suppose. No macro is used solely to produce energy and for nothing else.
Carbs are not empty calories. Vegetables and fruit have a LOT of nutrition in them. Grains have some nutrition too although I think it is often harder for us to access. But I do think sugar is empty calories. Sucrose does not have anything beyond energy, I believe.
It's redeeming quality is that it tastes really good.
No, sugar is included in carbohydrates. Carbohydrates (including sucrose) are broken down into monosaccharides. Monosaccharides aren't just metabolized for energy, the molecules are also used in many anabolic and other reactions.
Intermediates of glycolysis are used to synthesize amino acids for example.
The reason sugar is being called empty is that it doesn't provide anything else. Nothing essential (because we can produce our own), and nothing that we (US pop.) tend to be lacking in our diets. By the same logic, oils and solid fats that don't contain essential fatty acids should be considered empty calories. We do tend to get enough fats in our diet. Theoretically, if we were regularly over on protein and if there is/are food\s that are primarily the 11 non-essential amino acids they should also be considered empty.5 -
Hawaiian_Iceberg wrote: »Hawaiian_Iceberg wrote: »In my humble opinion the obesity levels we are seeing in the Western world have a lot to do with the increased sugar levels in our food. (but not the only one)
Globally we consume roughly 173 million tonnes of sugar per year. That is 24 kg per person on average! In the US that's apparently almost 44Kg per person! That's over 170,000 calories which is over 460 per day! That's very high compared to historical levels and has been raising steadily for the last century at least!
Now don't get me wrong I'm not a anti-sugar zelot or a pro-fat crusader, in fact, just because saturated fat might not be as bad as I once thought I see no reason to stick butter in my coffee .
I genuinely believe that a majority of people have no clue how calorific their food is or what their energy needs are.
sugar consumption is actually down ....
No it's not. Not even close. The sale of sugar in shops is down. True. However consumption continues to grow.
Everything I've seen says it's down in the US. What do you have to the contrary? Or are you talking globally where of course it is increasing as the western diet spreads and people in so called developing countries become wealthier on average (thus leading to problems in India and China with obesity and related health issues that can occur even without obesity).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3155936/
https://www.statnews.com/2016/09/20/sugar-consumption-americans/ [edit, oh this one was linked already -- sorry, ccrdragon!]
https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2014/02/25/surprise-american-sugar-consumption-is-on-the-decline
Obviously it is still too high, IMO, but no one is defending the amount of sugar the US population consumes anyway.2 -
stevencloser wrote: »
No, they're not empty in that sense. They're empty in the sense of pointless or unhelpful. They may have some food value, but not enough to give them a meaningful nutritional role in the context in which they're being discussed.That's why the definition of 'empty calorie' has to specify devoid of vitamins, minerals, fiber, essential fats and proteins, I suppose. No macro is used solely to produce energy and for nothing else.
Again, cardio.
You're agreeing with me, I think. I've pointed out that where calories are needed or important in the diet, they're not referred to as empty calories. If an athlete needs to eat more calories to perform or to stay well nourished, they're not empty calories. If a diabetic's insulin levels are too high and she needs to eat sugar to deal with that, they're not empty calories. But if an overweight person eats a bag of candy without needing the calories from it, they're empty calories. That's the way the term is used.
0 -
I'm not defining this term in a new way or refining its definition. I'm pointing out the meaning it already has.
No, they're not empty in that sense. They're empty in the sense of pointless or unhelpful. They may have some food value, but not enough to give them a meaningful nutritional role in the context in which they're being discussed.That's why the definition of 'empty calorie' has to specify devoid of vitamins, minerals, fiber, essential fats and proteins, I suppose. No macro is used solely to produce energy and for nothing else.
Which is why he definition is the way it is - to define the context. That is because no macro is truly "pointless or unhelpful" beyond providing energy. If that were not the case, such a specific definition would be unnecessary.
It's not macros that are referred to as empty calories - it's foods. Typically foods like candy, sugary drinks and desserts, potato chips, and the like that contribute primarily unneeded extra calories and little else of importance. That's not to say they are devoid of nutrients, just that whatever they contribute could just as easily be obtained from much more nutritious or lower-calorie foods. And to reiterate, the term is only used where extra calories are not an asset, which is the case with most people in developed countries.
1 -
Hawaiian_Iceberg wrote: »Hawaiian_Iceberg wrote: »In my humble opinion the obesity levels we are seeing in the Western world have a lot to do with the increased sugar levels in our food. (but not the only one)
Globally we consume roughly 173 million tonnes of sugar per year. That is 24 kg per person on average! In the US that's apparently almost 44Kg per person! That's over 170,000 calories which is over 460 per day! That's very high compared to historical levels and has been raising steadily for the last century at least!
Now don't get me wrong I'm not a anti-sugar zelot or a pro-fat crusader, in fact, just because saturated fat might not be as bad as I once thought I see no reason to stick butter in my coffee .
I genuinely believe that a majority of people have no clue how calorific their food is or what their energy needs are.
sugar consumption is actually down ....
No it's not. Not even close. The sale of sugar in shops is down. True. However consumption continues to grow.
How would sales be down but consumption up? Do they grow sugar beet themselves?2 -
stevencloser wrote: »
No, they're not empty in that sense. They're empty in the sense of pointless or unhelpful. They may have some food value, but not enough to give them a meaningful nutritional role in the context in which they're being discussed.That's why the definition of 'empty calorie' has to specify devoid of vitamins, minerals, fiber, essential fats and proteins, I suppose. No macro is used solely to produce energy and for nothing else.
Again, cardio.
You're agreeing with me, I think. I've pointed out that where calories are needed or important in the diet, they're not referred to as empty calories. If an athlete needs to eat more calories to perform or to stay well nourished, they're not empty calories. If a diabetic's insulin levels are too high and she needs to eat sugar to deal with that, they're not empty calories. But if an overweight person eats a bag of candy without needing the calories from it, they're empty excess calories. That's the way the term is used.
fixed it for you
2 -
Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
No, they're not empty in that sense. They're empty in the sense of pointless or unhelpful. They may have some food value, but not enough to give them a meaningful nutritional role in the context in which they're being discussed.That's why the definition of 'empty calorie' has to specify devoid of vitamins, minerals, fiber, essential fats and proteins, I suppose. No macro is used solely to produce energy and for nothing else.
Again, cardio.
For the maybe 2-3% of the population that runs 30+ or so miles a week (or bike, swim an equivalent amount) you have a point. For the rest it's low nutrient/high calorie (i.e., empty calorie) food.
Now nothing wrong with some level of low nutrient/high calorie food in the diet. I believe the WHO recommends no more than 10% of total calories come from added sugars.
http://sugarscience.ucsf.edu/the-growing-concern-of-overconsumption/#.WQiBr9ryuUk
This would be the case for a typical individual. Someone on a low calorie diet would most likely need to eat a smaller % to ensure proper nutrition. An endurance athlete could eat a higher %.
A good and long workout will burn as much if not more calories than those 10%. That's just 200 calories for the 2000 kcal standard human used in most places. It doesn't take too much to get that much.0 -
With all the posts claiming there's no such thing as empty calorie foods, it's not surprising to me that people get the impression there's a substantial anti-nutrition contingent here.4
-
With all the posts claiming there's no such thing as empty calorie foods, it's not surprising to me that people get the impression there's a substantial anti-nutrition contingent here.
With some people constantly misrepresenting and/or willfully ignoring what other people are actually saying, it's not surprising to me that veteran posters continue to be frustrated that they are labeled as anti-nutrition...19 -
With all the posts claiming there's no such thing as empty calorie foods, it's not surprising to me that people get the impression there's a substantial anti-nutrition contingent here.
who is this person saying to ignore nutrition?
Not sure how you get to people saying sugar is not empty means that they are "anti-nutrition"...
9 -
WinoGelato wrote: »With all the posts claiming there's no such thing as empty calorie foods, it's not surprising to me that people get the impression there's a substantial anti-nutrition contingent here.
With some people constantly misrepresenting and/or willfully ignoring what other people are actually saying, it's not surprising to me that veteran posters continue to be frustrated that they are labeled as anti-nutrition...
^ QFT.6 -
With all the posts claiming there's no such thing as empty calorie foods, it's not surprising to me that people get the impression there's a substantial anti-nutrition contingent here.
It's weird to me that the people who focus on the total context of the diet for meeting nutritional needs are so frequently labeled as "anti-nutrition."17 -
I'm not defining this term in a new way or refining its definition. I'm pointing out the meaning it already has.
No, they're not empty in that sense. They're empty in the sense of pointless or unhelpful. They may have some food value, but not enough to give them a meaningful nutritional role in the context in which they're being discussed.That's why the definition of 'empty calorie' has to specify devoid of vitamins, minerals, fiber, essential fats and proteins, I suppose. No macro is used solely to produce energy and for nothing else.
Which is why he definition is the way it is - to define the context. That is because no macro is truly "pointless or unhelpful" beyond providing energy. If that were not the case, such a specific definition would be unnecessary.
It's not macros that are referred to as empty calories - it's foods.
Well, no, it's ingredients, specifically "calories from added sugars and/or solid fats, but with little if any nutrient value." (Cites: http://www.foodpyramid.com/myplate/empty-calories/; https://www.ars.usda.gov/news-events/news/research-news/2012/snacking-associated-with-increased-calories-decreased-nutrients/; some of the links you provided earlier.)
Foods contain empty calories, they may also contain ingredients with nutrients.
That you can obtain the same nutrients from a lower calorie food does not make the food itself "empty calories." You can obtain the nutrients in whole milk from skim or lower fat milk, but whole milk is not empty calories. (It does contain empty calories according to the USDA, which also, sigh, recommends low fat cheese.)1 -
WinoGelato wrote: »With all the posts claiming there's no such thing as empty calorie foods, it's not surprising to me that people get the impression there's a substantial anti-nutrition contingent here.
With some people constantly misrepresenting and/or willfully ignoring what other people are actually saying, it's not surprising to me that veteran posters continue to be frustrated that they are labeled as anti-nutrition...
This is simply evidence that people read into posts. Just because I say you don't need to exclude Reese's Peanut Butter Eggs does not mean I'm recommending you only eat Reese's Peanut Butter Eggs...although they have achieved the perfect peanut butter to chocolate ratio.15 -
With all the posts claiming there's no such thing as empty calorie foods, it's not surprising to me that people get the impression there's a substantial anti-nutrition contingent here.
Please identify posts in this discussion that discounted the importance of nutrition or which you read to be dismissing nutritional considerations. I ask this because I suspect that you have uncharitably misinterpreted the posts to which you are referring and I would like to have the opportunity to explain what was being said.
Thanks in advance!7 -
i would also like to know where in this thread someone said consume sugar to the avoidance of all other nutrients...????????3
-
With all the posts claiming there's no such thing as empty calorie foods, it's not surprising to me that people get the impression there's a substantial anti-nutrition contingent here.
who is this person saying to ignore nutrition?
Not sure how you get to people saying sugar is not empty means that they are "anti-nutrition"...
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/excluding-the-middle.html/0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
No, they're not empty in that sense. They're empty in the sense of pointless or unhelpful. They may have some food value, but not enough to give them a meaningful nutritional role in the context in which they're being discussed.That's why the definition of 'empty calorie' has to specify devoid of vitamins, minerals, fiber, essential fats and proteins, I suppose. No macro is used solely to produce energy and for nothing else.
Again, cardio.
For the maybe 2-3% of the population that runs 30+ or so miles a week (or bike, swim an equivalent amount) you have a point. For the rest it's low nutrient/high calorie (i.e., empty calorie) food.
Now nothing wrong with some level of low nutrient/high calorie food in the diet. I believe the WHO recommends no more than 10% of total calories come from added sugars.
http://sugarscience.ucsf.edu/the-growing-concern-of-overconsumption/#.WQiBr9ryuUk
This would be the case for a typical individual. Someone on a low calorie diet would most likely need to eat a smaller % to ensure proper nutrition. An endurance athlete could eat a higher %.
A good and long workout will burn as much if not more calories than those 10%. That's just 200 calories for the 2000 kcal standard human used in most places. It doesn't take too much to get that much.
I agree a long workout will burn more than the 10% mentioned. That is why I said it would be reasonable for people exercising for a long time to consume more than 10% of their calories in less nutrient dense foods. An I believe most dietitians would agree.
Fact of the matter is the number of people participating in those type of workouts you describe is pretty minimal as a % of the total population.2 -
Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
No, they're not empty in that sense. They're empty in the sense of pointless or unhelpful. They may have some food value, but not enough to give them a meaningful nutritional role in the context in which they're being discussed.That's why the definition of 'empty calorie' has to specify devoid of vitamins, minerals, fiber, essential fats and proteins, I suppose. No macro is used solely to produce energy and for nothing else.
Again, cardio.
For the maybe 2-3% of the population that runs 30+ or so miles a week (or bike, swim an equivalent amount) you have a point. For the rest it's low nutrient/high calorie (i.e., empty calorie) food.
Now nothing wrong with some level of low nutrient/high calorie food in the diet. I believe the WHO recommends no more than 10% of total calories come from added sugars.
http://sugarscience.ucsf.edu/the-growing-concern-of-overconsumption/#.WQiBr9ryuUk
This would be the case for a typical individual. Someone on a low calorie diet would most likely need to eat a smaller % to ensure proper nutrition. An endurance athlete could eat a higher %.
A good and long workout will burn as much if not more calories than those 10%. That's just 200 calories for the 2000 kcal standard human used in most places. It doesn't take too much to get that much.
I agree a long workout will burn more than the 10% mentioned. That is why I said it would be reasonable for people exercising for a long time to consume more than 10% of their calories in less nutrient dense foods. An I believe most dietitians would agree.
Fact of the matter is the number of people participating in those type of workouts you describe is pretty minimal as a % of the total population.
I'd disagree with the assumption that so little of the population is doing workouts that exceed 10% of their sedentary TDEE.1 -
Let's all try to discuss this reasonably. You and I know I didn't say that you said this.i would also like to know where in this thread someone said consume sugar to the avoidance of all other nutrients...????????
When you and others say that foods like refined table sugar aren't empty calories you're putting yourself at odds with doctors and nutritionists who describe them that way. For example, these articles (of many) use the term "empty calories" in contrast to other healthier foods.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26190228
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27990339
You did say, several times that they are not empty calories:NorthCascades wrote: »This is a terrible article. Somebody "debunked" the "myth" that sugar is empty calories by pointing out that it has calories. Stupidest thing I've read in a long time.
how so? If something provides energy, it can't be empty. If anything the empty calorie argument is the dump one.if you want to argue that sugar should not crowd out other nutrients, then yes I agree; however, that does not make it empty, toxic, etc...
Those weren't the only posts, and you weren't the only one - just giving examples.not sure how it is a word game to say that sugar is not an empty calorie when one derives energy from it.
Don't get me wrong - you're free to disagree with how doctors and nutritionists characterize foods. But if you do, don't be too surprised if people interpret it as disagreeing with their recommendations.
(Edited to change the order of paragraphs.)1 -
Why on earth would someone interpret "semantically I do not think this way of describing parts of or ingredients in foods such as sugar or saturated fats empty calories, because they are only empty if you assume there is no benefit and sometimes there is a benefit" to mean "I do not think nutrition matters"?
Especially -- and this is key -- if the person debating about the benefits of the term "empty calories" says multiple times "of course, nutrition matters" and "of course, the overall diet should be healthy and balanced and you shouldn't include excessive amounts of low nutrient foods."
I really can't see how someone would come to such an uncharitable and incorrect interpretation unless they were actually trying to misrepresent what was said, which I certainly hope no one would want to do!12 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Why on earth would someone interpret "semantically I do not think this way of describing parts of or ingredients in foods such as sugar or saturated fats empty calories, because they are only empty if you assume there is no benefit and sometimes there is a benefit" to mean "I do not think nutrition matters"?
Especially -- and this is key -- if the person debating about the benefits of the term "empty calories" says multiple times "of course, nutrition matters" and "of course, the overall diet should be healthy and balanced and you shouldn't include excessive amounts of low nutrient foods."
I really can't see how someone would come to such an uncharitable and incorrect interpretation unless they were actually trying to misrepresent what was said, which I certainly hope no one would want to do!
This continues to perplex me as well, that no matter how many times it is stated that nutrition is important and it is the context of the overall diet that matters - these statements are continually ignored. And yet, I also suspect, that our requests for clarification on how this is possible, will also be ignored.
7
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
- 176K 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
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions