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
Options
Replies
-
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?2 -
stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »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.
You're just playing word games.
Yep.
If you Google empty calorie definition you get items similar to this (what most reasonable people would consider empty calories)
A unit of carbohydrate-based energy derived from refined food products that are high in sugars or salts, but essentially devoid of nutritive value, lacking protein, vitamins, dietary fiber, and essential fats. Empty calories are typical of ‘junk’ or snack foods
Examples Potato chips (crisps in the UK), pastries, cakes, soft drinks
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Empty+calorie
More:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empty calories
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/empty-calorie
http://www.livestrong.com/article/475404-definition-of-empty-calories/
http://www.med.umich.edu/1libr/Mhealthy/WhatAreEmptyCalories.pdf
http://www.webmd.com/diet/features/beware-empty-calories#1
http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/emptycalorie-foods-vs-nutrientdense-foods-1350.html
http://www.nccor.org/downloads/jada2010.pdf
And yet when you go running, those are better than a plate of broccoli for your performance.
yea, but junk = empty don't you know?????????????2 -
The writer wants to grab attention by writing a contrarian article. But many of his arguments are weak. Other people have already talked about his lack of background and credentials.
--As someone else pointed out, the writer's claim about sugar not being empty calories makes no sense. Just because a food has calories doesn't mean those calories are as nutritionally valuable as those in other foods. Calories that fall far short in providing nutrition are called "empty" by nutritionists.
--Never have heard anyone argue that sugar wasn't a necessary ingredient in most sweet deserts. That's a Straw Man argument, or should I call it a Gingerbread Man argument?
--It has been reported since this article appeared that Big Sugar HAS plotted to keep people eating sugar. It paid research scientists starting in the 1960s to minimize the health problems with sugar while making fat the enemy.
his point is that it is not some food industry conspiracy to get us all hooked on sugar, and he is also addressing the "sugar is not necessary" point that seems to be made over and over...0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »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.
You're just playing word games.
not sure how it is a word game to say that sugar is not an empty calorie when one derives energy from it.
Can you name anything that's empty in the strictly literal sense you (and the article's author) mean it? I.e., empty of everything, including its own materials?
0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »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.
You're just playing word games.
not sure how it is a word game to say that sugar is not an empty calorie when one derives energy from it.
Can you name anything that's empty in the strictly literal sense you (and the article's author) mean it? I.e., empty of everything, including its own materials?
0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »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.
You're just playing word games.
not sure how it is a word game to say that sugar is not an empty calorie when one derives energy from it.
Can you name anything that's empty in the strictly literal sense you (and the article's author) mean it? I.e., empty of everything, including its own materials?
No, your post contains pixels.1 -
NorthCascades wrote: »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.
You're just playing word games.
not sure how it is a word game to say that sugar is not an empty calorie when one derives energy from it.
Can you name anything that's empty in the strictly literal sense you (and the article's author) mean it? I.e., empty of everything, including its own materials?
No, your post contains pixels.
Mis post from my phone ..
Go look up the definition of empty and then we can talk...0 -
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. 7 -
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.
Genuinely curious... when keto folks add fat to things, just for the sake of adding fat, how is that not "empty calories"? I know I've seen posts where people have talked about drinking the hamburger grease or at a minimum, not draining it. Others put butter and coconut oil in coffee. As someone who eats a diet with no propensity toward one macro or another (besides a minimum of protein), to me that focus on consuming straight fat seems like empty calories. How is that different than eating something high in sugar for a specific nutritional focus (endurance athletes looking to Goo for a race)?8 -
WinoGelato wrote: »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.
Genuinely curious... when keto folks add fat to things, just for the sake of adding fat, how is that not "empty calories"? I know I've seen posts where people have talked about drinking the hamburger grease or at a minimum, not draining it. Others put butter and coconut oil in coffee. As someone who eats a diet with no propensity toward one macro or another (besides a minimum of protein), to me that focus on consuming straight fat seems like empty calories. How is that different than eating something high in sugar for a specific nutritional focus (endurance athletes looking to Goo for a race)?
I think it depends on the fat. Some fats have more nutrition than others. Fats are often attached to a food, like fats in beef. With sugar it is the same. Sugar in strawberries is coming with nutrition. Strawberry flavored candy is not.
Fat that is just added to a diet to raise calories is not all that helpful, IMO. Among more experienced, and well read, low carbers this is not generally encouraged as something that should be pursued. It is not generally done. Some will though. I think that could be the equivalent of keto empty calories
.... Although grease drippings is from a food - it is just a part that people put aside (perhaps to eat later). Added sugar, like white sugar, is not exactly a part of a food that you were eating but did not finish. I suppose we could call that fat empty calories. No vitamins in it, but it helps with vitamin absorption though. "Take vitamins with a meal" and all that.
I add about a tsp of coconut oil to my coffee each day. For some that could be empty calories. For me it is healthful because of health issues. For me it is not just empty energy - I'm not eating it specifically for the energy. In the same vein, if sugar is improving someone's health, perhaps it is not empty calories for them either.
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.1 -
WinoGelato wrote:Genuinely curious... when keto folks add fat to things, just for the sake of adding fat, how is that not "empty calories"? I know I've seen posts where people have talked about drinking the hamburger grease or at a minimum, not draining it. Others put butter and coconut oil in coffee. As someone who eats a diet with no propensity toward one macro or another (besides a minimum of protein), to me that focus on consuming straight fat seems like empty calories. How is that different than eating something high in sugar for a specific nutritional focus (endurance athletes looking to Goo for a race)?
18 -
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.
4 -
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.6 -
Even though I think sugar isn't necessary in Blueberry Buckle, Strawberry Shortcake or Apple Pie, I don't think Sugar is "empty calories". I mean that it is certain that a cupa tea with 3 or 4 sugar cubes gives enough energy to get through a few hours work! So sugar has calories, it has energy to put in the body, how is that "empty" calories?0
-
WinoGelato wrote: »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.
Genuinely curious... when keto folks add fat to things, just for the sake of adding fat, how is that not "empty calories"? I know I've seen posts where people have talked about drinking the hamburger grease or at a minimum, not draining it. Others put butter and coconut oil in coffee. As someone who eats a diet with no propensity toward one macro or another (besides a minimum of protein), to me that focus on consuming straight fat seems like empty calories. How is that different than eating something high in sugar for a specific nutritional focus (endurance athletes looking to Goo for a race)?
TBH a handful of nuts or a couple of tablespoons of nut butter on a celery stick does not give me energy, it just takes away the hungry feelings. When sugar is combined with fat, same thing, no energy after eating that, it weighs me down. So I couldn't say I'm energized by fat in foods. I understand that keto adapted people can get energy from fats as I have read here on mfp. That just never happened to me, and I did try it. Fruit, which is also sugar, does give me a refreshed cheerful active feeling as a snack, but there are so many fruits, its not a specific one.
No specific food really energizes me, its a combination of sleep, good food and mental/spiritual balance.
I wouldn't call fat "empty" either though.
0 -
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.
7 -
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.3 -
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 %.3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 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
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 921 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions