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.
It's All Sugar's Fault
Options
Replies
-
cbohling1987 wrote: »bmeadows380 wrote: »
For me, the easiest way for me to lose weight is to calorie count with the freedom to eat what I want while staying within my calorie budget, not stressing about what I'm eating or what type of food I'm eating. I try to eat healthier foods, leaner meats, more fish and less beef, more vegetables and the like, but if I have a craving for chips or cookies or even McDonald's french fries, I have them - I'm just learning to eat smaller portions, aiming for a kiddie french fry or something like that. And for me, this method has worked - I've lost 90 lbs so far and 8 inches from my waist. I've kept it up for 10 months. This is the method that is best sustainable for me and has provided the best results - but this is what works for me and may not be the method that someone else needs.
Yeah, I think the whole "cut carbs/cut sugar/cut whatever" frequently doesn't work for people because then they just eat too many calories of something else.
On the other hand, it seems to me like approaching it from a "count and limit your calories" standpoint frequently leads to a lower sugar intake regardless, because people who are counting their calories quickly discover that they can't eat that many high-sugar food items in a day without quickly running into their calorie limit.
Oh, for anyone who ate a lot of sugar, I think this is of course true. Even for me, who wasn't really a huge sugar person, because of course it's easier to justify something if you aren't thinking about how much you are eating (or calories).
I don't disagree that people cutting back will cut sugar, I just think for most people just cutting sugar wouldn't resolve the issue or the high cal items are not just sugar (unless someone was a huge non diet pop fan). To have 880 cals, I expect that Cinnabon has a bunch of fat too.
I think we agree, but too often I see people who assume that if someone is saying "it's not just sugar" that they are saying "no one should cut back on sugar." I don't think "sugar" is the culprit, but I do think that a good portion of the excess calories the average American consumes is sugar (differing person to person, of course, and less so for adults than kids on average). It's also fat and other refined carbs and a variety of foods differing from person to person, so focusing just on sugar (or carbs) makes no sense to me. Again, I know I'm not arguing with you, your post just provoked these thoughts.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »If the jello tastes more sweet, I think it's likely due to a decrease in the acid used for tartness rather than an increase in the amount of sugar contained in it.
I tried googling but couldn't find anything about an increase in sugar. I did read a couple of interesting articles about the history of Jell-O though.
Jell-O is a fascinating food (at least to me). I recently read "Perfection Salad," a book about the history of American women in food-related professions, and it had some information about the history of Jell-O salads and how they were seen as "cleaner" than just eating the same foods not suspended in gelatin.
1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
Oh, for anyone who ate a lot of sugar, I think this is of course true. Even for me, who wasn't really a huge sugar person, because of course it's easier to justify something if you aren't thinking about how much you are eating (or calories).
I don't disagree that people cutting back will cut sugar, I just think for most people just cutting sugar wouldn't resolve the issue or the high cal items are not just sugar (unless someone was a huge non diet pop fan). To have 880 cals, I expect that Cinnabon has a bunch of fat too.
I think we agree, but too often I see people who assume that if someone is saying "it's not just sugar" that they are saying "no one should cut back on sugar." I don't think "sugar" is the culprit, but I do think that a good portion of the excess calories the average American consumes is sugar (differing person to person, of course, and less so for adults than kids on average). It's also fat and other refined carbs and a variety of foods differing from person to person, so focusing just on sugar (or carbs) makes no sense to me. Again, I know I'm not arguing with you, your post just provoked these thoughts.
Yeah I totally agree, my only point was that I think that calorie counting pretty much leads to a limited sugar intake by default. It seems to me like you'd have to be eating a pretty strange diet to go way over your recommended daily sugar intake goal while maintaining your calorie budget. I could be wrong, though!
1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »If the jello tastes more sweet, I think it's likely due to a decrease in the acid used for tartness rather than an increase in the amount of sugar contained in it.
I tried googling but couldn't find anything about an increase in sugar. I did read a couple of interesting articles about the history of Jell-O though.
Jell-O is a fascinating food (at least to me). I recently read "Perfection Salad," a book about the history of American women in food-related professions, and it had some information about the history of Jell-O salads and how they were seen as "cleaner" than just eating the same foods not suspended in gelatin.
Interesting!
I'd add that the icky savory gelatin salads of my childhood were definitely seen as a bit fancy, in a "ladies who lunch" sort of way, in certain aspirational working-class to middle-class social circles at that time.0 -
cbohling1987 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
Oh, for anyone who ate a lot of sugar, I think this is of course true. Even for me, who wasn't really a huge sugar person, because of course it's easier to justify something if you aren't thinking about how much you are eating (or calories).
I don't disagree that people cutting back will cut sugar, I just think for most people just cutting sugar wouldn't resolve the issue or the high cal items are not just sugar (unless someone was a huge non diet pop fan). To have 880 cals, I expect that Cinnabon has a bunch of fat too.
I think we agree, but too often I see people who assume that if someone is saying "it's not just sugar" that they are saying "no one should cut back on sugar." I don't think "sugar" is the culprit, but I do think that a good portion of the excess calories the average American consumes is sugar (differing person to person, of course, and less so for adults than kids on average). It's also fat and other refined carbs and a variety of foods differing from person to person, so focusing just on sugar (or carbs) makes no sense to me. Again, I know I'm not arguing with you, your post just provoked these thoughts.
Yeah I totally agree, my only point was that I think that calorie counting pretty much leads to a limited sugar intake by default. It seems to me like you'd have to be eating a pretty strange diet to go way over your recommended daily sugar intake goal while maintaining your calorie budget. I could be wrong, though!
Not sure how you define "way over," but I had plenty of days when I went over my MFP recommended sugar goal while I was losing weight -- all I needed to do was consume more fruit than usual.3 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »If the jello tastes more sweet, I think it's likely due to a decrease in the acid used for tartness rather than an increase in the amount of sugar contained in it.
That's certainly possible. As you'd guess, it's been a while since I've knowingly eaten any Jello, so I haven't recently taste-tested.
(For others' information: I'm vegetarian, Jello isn't. I think GottaBurnEmAll knows this from prior forum chats.
). 0 -
wordy nostalgia
Fair enough regarding the timing being off (I'm 29 so I was not there to observe social attitudes about it at the time). My post was mostly a complaint regarding the fact that modern American cities are designed in such a way that seems to actively discourage walking. On this website we all know that non-"exercise" energy expenditure is a big part of CI/CO, and walking for short errands is one of the ways that many Americans could increase their total energy expenditure. However, the design of modern American suburbs makes that very difficult, and I personally find that really frustrating.
2 -
Well, my old doctors used to tell me, routinely, to stop eating so much. I would go to the doctor for an illness or issue, and being overweight, they'd tell me to cut my intake down, eat more fiber, etc.
What they didn't ask was what I was eating regularly... and the very few times we did talk about it, they clearly didn't believe me. I would honestly tell them I ate 1 meal a day, maybe 2 on a good day, and would estimate an intake of around 1000 calories... but that every 4-5 days I would fall into a very large "binge" that would equate to 3-4k in calories in one sitting. Again, still told, cut my intake.
Problem was, I was being pretty honest. Yeah, I could have been off here and there but it came down to I really was eating like that. Had my physicians paid attention, they would have clearly been able to diagnose the eating disorder I was later diagnosed with. Instead, I spent another 1.5 years struggling, eventually getting so sick when trying to refeed to the 1500 calorie goal the dietitian set for me that I had to have aggressive treatment... and only after subsequent testing was done did they discover my lack of weight loss wasn't due to abnormal excessive calorie consumption, but rather abnormally low fasting metabolic rates.
After 6 months of hormone therapy and re-education, connecting with a therapist and having a proper ED diagnosis, I was able to see some progress... but it took me literally years. It took me asking some tough questions and holding my doctors directly accountable when appropriate to get the conversation in the right places.
Like you, I had doctors trying to talk to me about my weight when I had bronchitis or when I went in for elbow pain or something else that was logically unrelated to my weight-bearing. I found that asking a simple "Can you explain how my bronchitis has any direct relation to my weight?" type of question got most to shut up about it. When they didn't, I would simply say, I didn't come here today to discuss a weight loss plan, I came here today because I have an acute issue and would like to address it. The very few doctors that still continue to push the issue were subsequently fired.
I will say, however, that I found a stint on phentermine to be very helpful for me during a stall. Not all weight loss medications are so awful, but I do believe they should be used sparingly. There are some solutions out there, and we have to consider what we are saying to the doctor that may be propelling the conversation in certain directions. If we are talking about struggling with food cravings, energy, motivation, hunger, anything like that, the doctor may suggest some of the Rx medications out there since they are made to directly address these compulsive-type issues. Ultimately, the patient sets the topic and the tone.
Anyway, these are just some of my thoughts. Doctors, dietitians, every professional we work with is a fallible human being. Even if their professional focus is diet and weight loss, they can be wrong in their assumptions or out of date in their education. The important point is not so much that a doctor avoid the topic, but rather that they be open to learning more and accepting that patients do have ready access to new materials that could help everyone involved.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
Not sure how you define "way over," but I had plenty of days when I went over my MFP recommended sugar goal while I was losing weight -- all I needed to do was consume more fruit than usual.
Yeah to be clear by "way over" I mean like 200g or more, which isn't that hard to hit if you're like me before I started logging calories - Fruity Pebbles and milk for breakfast, maybe a soda at lunch, Snickers bar in the afternoon, maybe ice cream after dinner.
0 -
cbohling1987 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
Oh, for anyone who ate a lot of sugar, I think this is of course true. Even for me, who wasn't really a huge sugar person, because of course it's easier to justify something if you aren't thinking about how much you are eating (or calories).
I don't disagree that people cutting back will cut sugar, I just think for most people just cutting sugar wouldn't resolve the issue or the high cal items are not just sugar (unless someone was a huge non diet pop fan). To have 880 cals, I expect that Cinnabon has a bunch of fat too.
I think we agree, but too often I see people who assume that if someone is saying "it's not just sugar" that they are saying "no one should cut back on sugar." I don't think "sugar" is the culprit, but I do think that a good portion of the excess calories the average American consumes is sugar (differing person to person, of course, and less so for adults than kids on average). It's also fat and other refined carbs and a variety of foods differing from person to person, so focusing just on sugar (or carbs) makes no sense to me. Again, I know I'm not arguing with you, your post just provoked these thoughts.
Yeah I totally agree, my only point was that I think that calorie counting pretty much leads to a limited sugar intake by default. It seems to me like you'd have to be eating a pretty strange diet to go way over your recommended daily sugar intake goal while maintaining your calorie budget. I could be wrong, though!
I did it while losing, if we're talking about the MFP default sugar goal - over sugar, within calories. Every day. And while literally the only added sugar I ate was some concentrated fruit juice well down the ingredients list in a daily 30-calorie tablespoon of all-fruit spread. Crazy.
The rest was inherent sugars in whole fruit (couple of servings) and in lots of no-sugar-added dairy foods, most of them low/no fat. I'm ovo-lacto veg, and Northern European genes: I love my dairy.
ETA: I stopped tracking sugar in MFP, and tracked fiber instead.
3 -
cbohling1987 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
Not sure how you define "way over," but I had plenty of days when I went over my MFP recommended sugar goal while I was losing weight -- all I needed to do was consume more fruit than usual.
Yeah to be clear by "way over" I mean like 200g or more, which isn't that hard to hit if you're like me before I started logging calories - Fruity Pebbles and milk for breakfast, maybe a soda at lunch, Snickers bar in the afternoon, maybe ice cream after dinner.
200 grams of sugar is about 775 calories, right? It's going to be hard for anyone to get that much on a calorie-restricted diet (unless, I guess, their goal is higher than usual). When I was losing weight, I was getting about 1,500-1,700 calories a day. Spending 775 calories on sugar (on top of the default goal for sugar) is going to be a challenge.
But the issue would still be the calories, not the sugar itself.
Someone eating 800 calories or more of sugar per day falls into one of three camps -- 1) meeting the calorie goal but failing to meet nutritional needs; 2) possibly meeting their nutritional needs but exceeding their calorie goal; 3) someone with a very high TDEE who can somehow make it all work. It's possible I'm missing a type of person, but that's all I can think of.2 -
cbohling1987 wrote: »wordy nostalgia
Fair enough regarding the timing being off (I'm 29 so I was not there to observe social attitudes about it at the time). My post was mostly a complaint regarding the fact that modern American cities are designed in such a way that seems to actively discourage walking. On this website we all know that non-"exercise" energy expenditure is a big part of CI/CO, and walking for short errands is one of the ways that many Americans could increase their total energy expenditure. However, the design of modern American suburbs makes that very difficult, and I personally find that really frustrating.
Couldn't agree more! In some areas, at least, cycling is starting to be a more realistic option, with increased trail/bike lane development - a good thing, in my book.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »cbohling1987 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
Oh, for anyone who ate a lot of sugar, I think this is of course true. Even for me, who wasn't really a huge sugar person, because of course it's easier to justify something if you aren't thinking about how much you are eating (or calories).
I don't disagree that people cutting back will cut sugar, I just think for most people just cutting sugar wouldn't resolve the issue or the high cal items are not just sugar (unless someone was a huge non diet pop fan). To have 880 cals, I expect that Cinnabon has a bunch of fat too.
I think we agree, but too often I see people who assume that if someone is saying "it's not just sugar" that they are saying "no one should cut back on sugar." I don't think "sugar" is the culprit, but I do think that a good portion of the excess calories the average American consumes is sugar (differing person to person, of course, and less so for adults than kids on average). It's also fat and other refined carbs and a variety of foods differing from person to person, so focusing just on sugar (or carbs) makes no sense to me. Again, I know I'm not arguing with you, your post just provoked these thoughts.
Yeah I totally agree, my only point was that I think that calorie counting pretty much leads to a limited sugar intake by default. It seems to me like you'd have to be eating a pretty strange diet to go way over your recommended daily sugar intake goal while maintaining your calorie budget. I could be wrong, though!
Not sure how you define "way over," but I had plenty of days when I went over my MFP recommended sugar goal while I was losing weight -- all I needed to do was consume more fruit than usual.
Yep, I eat around 50% "convenience" foods, 50% whole foods and on the rare occasion I go over the MFP sugar default, it can usually be blamed on:- Cake, cupcake, or doughnut (usually on a special occasion)
- Yummy yummy fruit
0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »If the jello tastes more sweet, I think it's likely due to a decrease in the acid used for tartness rather than an increase in the amount of sugar contained in it.
I tried googling but couldn't find anything about an increase in sugar. I did read a couple of interesting articles about the history of Jell-O though.
Jell-O is a fascinating food (at least to me). I recently read "Perfection Salad," a book about the history of American women in food-related professions, and it had some information about the history of Jell-O salads and how they were seen as "cleaner" than just eating the same foods not suspended in gelatin.
I just added this to my to-read shelf - i'm intrigued1 -
deannalfisher wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »If the jello tastes more sweet, I think it's likely due to a decrease in the acid used for tartness rather than an increase in the amount of sugar contained in it.
I tried googling but couldn't find anything about an increase in sugar. I did read a couple of interesting articles about the history of Jell-O though.
Jell-O is a fascinating food (at least to me). I recently read "Perfection Salad," a book about the history of American women in food-related professions, and it had some information about the history of Jell-O salads and how they were seen as "cleaner" than just eating the same foods not suspended in gelatin.
I just added this to my to-read shelf - i'm intrigued
I really enjoyed it!0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »If the jello tastes more sweet, I think it's likely due to a decrease in the acid used for tartness rather than an increase in the amount of sugar contained in it.
I tried googling but couldn't find anything about an increase in sugar. I did read a couple of interesting articles about the history of Jell-O though.
Jell-O is a fascinating food (at least to me). I recently read "Perfection Salad," a book about the history of American women in food-related professions, and it had some information about the history of Jell-O salads and how they were seen as "cleaner" than just eating the same foods not suspended in gelatin.
I just added this to my to-read shelf - i'm intrigued
I really enjoyed it!
score 1 for inter-library loan 2 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »If the jello tastes more sweet, I think it's likely due to a decrease in the acid used for tartness rather than an increase in the amount of sugar contained in it.
That's certainly possible. As you'd guess, it's been a while since I've knowingly eaten any Jello, so I haven't recently taste-tested.
(For others' information: I'm vegetarian, Jello isn't. I think GottaBurnEmAll knows this from prior forum chats. ).
Yeah, it's been a while for me too 1 -
cbohling1987 wrote: »wordy nostalgia
Fair enough regarding the timing being off (I'm 29 so I was not there to observe social attitudes about it at the time). My post was mostly a complaint regarding the fact that modern American cities are designed in such a way that seems to actively discourage walking.
Not to be totally nitpicky, since I agree with your basic point (NEAT is down and in part the car culture is part of it), but on the whole I'm not sure cities are the culprit, as cities are often much more walkable than other places people live. One reason I have always walked a lot, even when I was fat (and was able to increase NEAT a lot with just a little effort when I made an effort to lose weight) is because I am in a big city (Chicago), that is very walkable (and bikeable) and where driving a car to many places is often a huge pain (parking is either difficult to find or expensive).
Thinking about Ann's point, I do wonder if more recently the suburbs exploded even more. I wonder what the average ratio of city to suburb population was in the '70s, say. And in Chicago there was a huge amount of population movement through the '70s in ways that would have negatively affected this. And if you compare some of the older suburbs here (many of which were originally just towns) vs. some of the newer ones, they are more likely to have their own downtowns and be quite walkable (Oak Park, for example, or even much of the North Shore).1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »cbohling1987 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
Not sure how you define "way over," but I had plenty of days when I went over my MFP recommended sugar goal while I was losing weight -- all I needed to do was consume more fruit than usual.
Yeah to be clear by "way over" I mean like 200g or more, which isn't that hard to hit if you're like me before I started logging calories - Fruity Pebbles and milk for breakfast, maybe a soda at lunch, Snickers bar in the afternoon, maybe ice cream after dinner.
200 grams of sugar is about 775 calories, right? It's going to be hard for anyone to get that much on a calorie-restricted diet (unless, I guess, their goal is higher than usual). When I was losing weight, I was getting about 1,500-1,700 calories a day. Spending 775 calories on sugar (on top of the default goal for sugar) is going to be a challenge.
But the issue would still be the calories, not the sugar itself.
Someone eating 800 calories or more of sugar per day falls into one of three camps -- 1) meeting the calorie goal but failing to meet nutritional needs; 2) possibly meeting their nutritional needs but exceeding their calorie goal; 3) someone with a very high TDEE who can somehow make it all work. It's possible I'm missing a type of person, but that's all I can think of.
I think that's really her point. If you cut back on calories and are eating a healthful, balanced diet at all, you won't be getting huge amounts of sugar anyway, since the limit on calories and other things you need to eat will crowd it out. I think that's true, and why worrying specifically about sugar is unnecessary for most people.1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »cbohling1987 wrote: »wordy nostalgia
Fair enough regarding the timing being off (I'm 29 so I was not there to observe social attitudes about it at the time). My post was mostly a complaint regarding the fact that modern American cities are designed in such a way that seems to actively discourage walking.
Not to be totally nitpicky, since I agree with your basic point (NEAT is down and in part the car culture is part of it), but on the whole I'm not sure cities are the culprit, as cities are often much more walkable than other places people live. One reason I have always walked a lot, even when I was fat (and was able to increase NEAT a lot with just a little effort when I made an effort to lose weight) is because I am in a big city (Chicago), that is very walkable (and bikeable) and where driving a car to many places is often a huge pain (parking is either difficult to find or expensive).
Thinking about Ann's point, I do wonder if more recently the suburbs exploded even more. I wonder what the average ratio of city to suburb population was in the '70s, say. And in Chicago there was a huge amount of population movement through the '70s in ways that would have negatively affected this. And if you compare some of the older suburbs here (many of which were originally just towns) vs. some of the newer ones, they are more likely to have their own downtowns and be quite walkable (Oak Park, for example, or even much of the North Shore).
In my experience, living near downtown of a major metro area for the past few years, I'm walking more than I ever have. It was the suburbs and rural areas I've lived that made it more challenging to walk for daily life. Right now I can walk to the store, to the dentist and doctor, to work, to have dinner, etc. I can (and pretty much have) constructed a life where a car is unnecessary except for special events.
(I realize not every city is like this).1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions