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
Replies
-
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 -
Yeah, I had no car for 10 years (no, actually it was closer to 15), and don't need one now. I drive on average one day a week.0
-
Chiming in on city living. I grew up going to school in one (Edinburgh) and now live in London. Neither of those cities are easy to have a car in, London more so. Most Londoners do a lot of walking. Just walking in and out of tube stations keeps you pretty active. Most of my weight gain happened when I became and anxious agoraphobic who is not about getting on public transport. And now I have a car to overcome that so I'm not literally at home 24/7. But yeah, city dwellers probably get in more steps than other people.
1 -
Yeah @lemurcat12 @janejellyroll city design is different depending on where you are and in my experience Chicago is as you describe - great for walking.
I live in Lawrence, KS and while the older east side (where I live) is pretty walkable, the western suburban sprawl has areas where you can go for three or four miles without a place to buy food. If I had all the time in the world I wouldn't mind walking that, but of course if your schedule is busy and packed that would be pretty impossible.
In my experience the other plains cities (Kansas City, Omaha, Wichita) are similar in the sense that if you don't live in the city center, it's all too spread out for walking to be an option.
0 -
I grew up in the industrial north of England in the 50's-60's we walked most of the time or took the bus.
I moved to Canada in 74. Even then it was a car culture. I learnt to drive in and got a car because the bus service was so poor I couldn't get both my child to day care and me to work without taking 3 buses.
(had a driving hiatus between 81-99 and walked and biked everywhere)
The house I have now was, strangely enough, built in 74. It is in a suburb, no sidewalks, no shops close by. Not walking friendly, and only gets semi bike friendly once out of the suburb.
Yup, I drive quite a lot. Luckily I back on to a walking path with the rec centre at the other end. (Both the park with the path, and the rec centre have large parking lots so people can access them, ironic)
Cheers, h.
ETA: my sisters, 1 Borders/Edinburgh, 1 Kent/London, both walk and public transit, with shops, bars, restaurants, and other amenities within easy walking distance.1 -
Here in the palm of lower Michigan, small towns tend to be moderately walkable, as well as some city neighborhoods (few serious grocery stores within a reasonable walk, for some), and suburbs variable, tending to bad. I'm in an older suburb, about 5 miles from most needful things.
I don't walk lots (bad knees), but could otherwise walk to some, sometimes. Walking for most errands most of the time would be a heckuva chunk out of my day, and that 60-pound bag of cement I bought recently woulda been a baby-feline. Biking us more doable, in season, anyway. 0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
Right, like I could technically ingest 300g of sugar in a day and still hit a low calorie goal (say, 1500 cals) if I consumed nothing but, like, 10 cans of Coke or some other food where the vast majority of the calories come from sugar. But then I'd probably get super sick from malnourishment so in the long term it's impossible.
I was vague in my original post about what "way over" meant and I'm not referring to people going a little over their daily sugar goal by eating fruit, I'm referring to people who eat hundreds of grams more than they need too every day via soda, candy, sweetened cereal, pastries, etc.0 -
cbohling1987 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
Right, like I could technically ingest 300g of sugar in a day and still hit a low calorie goal (say, 1500 cals) if I consumed nothing but, like, 10 cans of Coke or some other food where the vast majority of the calories come from sugar. But then I'd probably get super sick from malnourishment so in the long term it's impossible.
I was vague in my original post about what "way over" meant and I'm not referring to people going a little over their daily sugar goal by eating fruit, I'm referring to people who eat hundreds of grams more than they need too every day via soda, candy, sweetened cereal, pastries, etc.
I went back & checked. I was usually going 20-25g over the default MFP sugar goal while losing a pound or more a week.
That's not "way over", but it does suggest how goofy the sugar goal can be when we can't separate out added sugar (I was eating < 6g added sugar daily at the time, plus probably around 2 servings fruit, most of the rest was dairy without added sugar).0 -
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).
I don't know why, but your post made me think of one of my favorite quotes about suburban sprawl which happens to be related to Chicago.
"Chicago happened slowly, like a migraine." Neil Gaiman6 -
janejellyroll wrote: »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).
I live in the suburbs. I live what would be a 10 minute walk from my supermarket that is made imprudent by a heavily traveled 6 lane highway. It's very frustrating, because I would walk to the store for small trips if I weren't taking my life into my hands.1 -
No food "makes" us lose anything. I personally eat 50+% carbs daily while losing and that includes sugah.
Ok so you eat 50% Carbs and sugar. How many calories are you eating??? How much do you work out?? My point is most people are not you. They eat too many calories and work out too little. Just because it works for you does mean most of society is following suit. Otherwise we would not seeing obesity rates like we do. I look great also and I eat tons of pizza and choc. But it's a once in a while thing. And I workout like crazy in the process. Does not mean everyone should eat what I ate on once a week spurge meal.6 -
.
No food "makes" us lose anything. I personally eat 50+% carbs daily while losing and that includes sugah.
Ok so you eat 50% Carbs and sugar. How many calories are you eating??? How much do you work out?? My point is most people are not you. They eat too many calories and work out too little. Just because it works for you does mean most of society is following suit. Otherwise we would not seeing obesity rates like we do. I look great also and I eat tons of pizza and choc. But it's a once in a while thing. And I workout like crazy in the process. Does not mean everyone should eat what I ate on once a week spurge meal.
You aren't quoting me, but i eat 120g+ pf sugar and up to 400g of carbs daily while keep protein around 175g. I cut fat because i am not satiated by it. And i am a male, exercise 5 to 6 hours (5x lifting/1x cardio) with a desk job. I maintain at 3k. But depending on the person their macros can vastly differ based on satiety factors, personal adherence and goals.5 -
Ok so you eat 50% Carbs and sugar. How many calories are you eating??? How much do you work out?? My point is most people are not you. They eat too many calories and work out too little. Just because it works for you does mean most of society is following suit. Otherwise we would not seeing obesity rates like we do. I look great also and I eat tons of pizza and choc. But it's a once in a while thing. And I workout like crazy in the process. Does not mean everyone should eat what I ate on once a week spurge meal.
I'm not sure who this was directed at, but I am a 44 yr old lightly active woman. I eat @ 1600 cals, 50% carbs (@ 200g, give or take). Made up of fruit, veggies, rice, barley, farro, yogurt, oatmeal, pizza, pasta, popcorn, chocolate, bread.
I don't feel full when I eat lower carb, I tend to overeat fat.
As someone else mentioned, research the Blue Zones. They are areas with impressive longevity, and while each zone eats a slightly different diet, they all eat mostly veggies, grains, and fruits. They are also very active, which I'd guess is really the key.1 -
.
No food "makes" us lose anything. I personally eat 50+% carbs daily while losing and that includes sugah.
Ok so you eat 50% Carbs and sugar. How many calories are you eating??? How much do you work out?? My point is most people are not you. They eat too many calories and work out too little. Just because it works for you does mean most of society is following suit. Otherwise we would not seeing obesity rates like we do. I look great also and I eat tons of pizza and choc. But it's a once in a while thing. And I workout like crazy in the process. Does not mean everyone should eat what I ate on once a week spurge meal.
you dont have to workout to lose weight though. all thats needed is a calorie deficit. exercise is healthy for many reasons I lost weight the 2-3 months I couldnt work out due to an injury.3 -
No food "makes" us lose anything. I personally eat 50+% carbs daily while losing and that includes sugah.
Ok so you eat 50% Carbs and sugar. How many calories are you eating??? How much do you work out??
It doesn't make that much difference. 50% is a percentage, after all.
50% of 1200 (which I think is too low for most) is 600 cal from carbs (including sugar) or 150 g. Leaves room for around 94 g of protein (which should be sufficient for anyone properly on 1200, as she would be a not that tall woman) and 25 g fat. I don't like eating 25 g fat and thus did a lower carb percentage when I (briefly!) did 1250, but not everyone feels that way, some do quite well on it, and some do well on a bit less protein (like many people who eat vegan).
If you do a number that I think is achievable for anyone who makes sure to be somewhat active, such as 1500, then 50% carbs is easy. Not my personal choice, but hardly something that works only for a few, due to total calories.
At maintenance (generally around 1800+), same. And yes, again, I am assuming people aren't totally sedentary, because if they are THAT's bad for them, why focus on cutting carbs rather than moving more?My point is most people are not you. They eat too many calories and work out too little.
On average, in the US, people move too little and eat too much, yes. That has zero to do with their carb percentage which is totally consistent with how people eat in plenty of places with low overall obesity. It probably has something to do with diet (which can vary a huge amount without cutting carbs) and it certainly has to do with the easy availability of high cal food and the lack of movement needed in daily life without making extra effort.Does not mean everyone should eat what I ate on once a week spurge meal.
Why do you think everyone is saying otherwise.
Some enjoy the "splurge meal" concept, some work in smaller high cal items more regularly, but no one is saying fill your diet with high cal items or ignore nutrition, as you seem to be thinking. (And certainly that's not what 50% carbs means -- I'm puzzled by how you got from there to here.)4
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
- 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