How do I talk my Mom off the "Sugar is Toxic" ledge?
Options
Replies
-
stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »vermilionflower wrote: »Fructose separated from the fruit is just like eating any other sugar, but that's completely different than eating fruit where the fructose is not separated. Straight sugar has zero nutrition, there's no healthy amount because it isn't nutritious.kshama2001 wrote: »Mom keeps seeing these types of articles in the Times:
https://www.nytimes.com/guides/smarterliving/how-to-stop-eating-sugar
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html
She also has a book on brain health with the same attitude. (I don't know the title off hand.)
I've started by asking her how many grams of added sugar she consumes per day. (I already know the answer is a lot less than the average American. For starters, she doesn't drink sweetened beverages.)
Now, I'd need more than "Lustig is a quack" or "Taubes is a quack." I'd need something reputable debunking their theories. (Not random blog posts.)
I've read here a lot that our bodies don't know the difference between sugar from fruit and sugar from added sugar - are there reputable sources for this?
BTW, she's not trying to lose weight and in fact struggles to stay above Underweight because she is very very active, especially for her age (80).
TIA
On fruit, fruit has vitamins/bioflavnoids/minerals and some fiber, than does refined sugar. Sugar are empty calories, devoid of healthy nutrients except for carbs.
You guys DO know that there's a minimum amount of calories your body needs, right? If you were only eating the nutrients your body needs, the essential fats and proteins, and carbs only from the most nutritious, green vegetables for their minerals and vitamins... you'd starve to death eventually because that's something like 800 calories.
I'm betting the guy in your profile picture doesn't get most of the calories he needs above the 800 you mention that are needed for minimum nutrition from foods with a lot of added sugar.
Nothing wrong with added sugars. The WHO and several other respected organizations provide guidelines on the amount of added sugars in a healthy diet.
Personally I try to stay about that level overall, but will splurge on occasion.
The WHO provides guidelines on the amount of sugar because of its calories vs. nutrition provided in an average person so as to not overeat calories. That's not really a problem in a situation where you've got all your nutrient needs checked already and still need 1000+ calories in your day.
So you would agree the 10% of calories from added sugars is reasonable for the vast majority of people?
Your original post said an person needs around 800 calories for basic nutrition. My point was successful athletes, people with 5% BF like your profile picture, etc aren't getting most their remainding caloric remaining needs over the 800 you've identified from nutritionally less dense foods. Maybe 1,000 calories or so if they need 4-5000 a day, but most of the extra calories are coming from nutritionally dense foods.
Googled the diets of some high level athletes:
JJ Watt
https://www.gq.com/story/jj-watt-real-life-diet
Jeff Engleston (2:10 marathoner)
https://runnersconnect.net/detailed-look-diet-elite-marathoner/
High level basketball players:
http://www.stack.com/a/basketball-nutrition-habits
Yeah, 10% is definitely a reasonable amount.
I'm just pointing out that there's no reason besides "not wanting to use your calories on it" for minimizing the amount of sugar you consume when your nutrient intakes would allow for eating it. You aren't getting nutrition brownie points for eating even more vegetables, even more healthy fats, even more protein than you need.
Oh, also guys like the one in my profile picture have higher needs for protein than the average person anyway.
Also I always have huge doubts about the accuracy of those "typical" meals for athletes or other celebrities. Just looking at the marathon runner, his breakfast is water (0 calories), black coffee (0 calories) and muesli with nonfat yogurt. Yet somehow that is supposed to come up at 650 calories. Müsli has about 450 cals for 100 grams, non-fat yogurt about 60-ish. If that's all the food he eats for breakfast, that's a lot of müsli, a lot of calories from added sugar in the müsli. And his typical day is only 2400 calories total. And I wouldn't count müsli as a particularly nutrient-dense food. It's better than cereal I guess. So, maybe not the best example of athletes who are eating so much in nutrient-dense foods.
The first link too, I'm too lazy to count the calories up, but for that guy to get to 4000-5000 calories or whatever from the listed foods, there has to be a lot of added butter etc. or really big portions for the meats. Depending on who you ask, that's not particularly healthy either.
Actually if you look at the article, the 2400 calorie day is the lowest of the 3 sample days for the marathoner. His higher days are 3000+ calories. He's 125 lbs
The first guy, JJ Watt is an American football player, about 6'5, 290 hovers around 10% BF. It's reported eats anywhere from 5-9000 calories a day, depending on training cycle. I've seen this a typical day for him. Huge quantities of generally nutrient dense food.
First Breakfast Oatmeal with blueberries and strawberries Six eggs Banana and apple Second breakfast Four eggs Two slices of wheat toast with peanut butter and banana and honey Two slices of wheat toast with jelly Lunch Three chicken breasts with whole wheat pasta and Italian dressing Side of broccoli Second lunch More chicken breasts with mashed sweet potatoes Steamed carrots Dinner Lamb chops with whole wheat pasta Grilled asparagus Second dinner Filet with whole wheat pasta Steamed broccoli0 -
xhunter561 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »xhunter561 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Mom keeps seeing these types of articles in the Times:
https://www.nytimes.com/guides/smarterliving/how-to-stop-eating-sugar
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html
She also has a book on brain health with the same attitude. (I don't know the title off hand.)
I've started by asking her how many grams of added sugar she consumes per day. (I already know the answer is a lot less than the average American. For starters, she doesn't drink sweetened beverages.)
Now, I'd need more than "Lustig is a quack" or "Taubes is a quack." I'd need something reputable debunking their theories. (Not random blog posts.)
I've read here a lot that our bodies don't know the difference between sugar from fruit and sugar from added sugar - are there reputable sources for this?
BTW, she's not trying to lose weight and in fact struggles to stay above Underweight because she is very very active, especially for her age (80).
TIA
for most people sugar is really toxic and can cause a number of health problems from inflammation, headaches, bad sugar drops, ect. for others not so much it just depends on your body, age, genetics, processed or unprocessed, how often its being consumed, and over all reason on eating it (as well as a lot more factors). But some people seem to thrive on it and if your not really seeing or feeling any ill health problems it probably doesn't mean you need to worry too much on it. but if she wants to try low to no sugar let her see if it works for herself, if it doesn't work for her she will stop and if she thrives she will be better off for it so i would be happy for her if she is feeling well, only a monster would want someone to go back eating something that is causing someone else ill. only worry if health problems start showing up.
What most people would benefit more from is removing sugar that is not from something like a fruit or veggie. (if you don't medically need to avoid it in general). basically processed sugars added to 'sweeten' stuff up is what is not overly good sense its also just empty calories not in accusation with nutrients. these added sugars also have a bad habit of causing a bad spike of blood sugar that tends to drop too fast at times making a person hungry within a few hours after foods.
it's better to talk around than to go off these 'studies' as most medical food related 'studies' don't take into consider other factors that pays into health and most studies in general are funded by someone selling something. especially the ones demonizing fats or carbs. For health its petty much just go off what your body is telling you and taking out what is causing you problems by isolation periods of certain items.
But let her try it and let her see how her body responds to it. If you don't want to listen to her just don't listen to her but let her work on her own body sense she is the one living in it. But if she struggles with weight and doesn't use carbs suggest home made nut butters like pecan. basically pecans and coconut oil. or just Fat bombs from something like coconut oil mixed with other simple items. Though if she is fat adapted she can use a little bit of carbs to spike insulin enough for it to start putting a little fat back on, done every so often its fine.
All sugar is from a fruit or veggie. The white powdery stuff you get in a bag? Made by making sugar beet tea and boiling it until all the water evaporates.
yes but the white stuff in bags have had all nutrition stripped from it as well as the fiber from the plant its taken from. sugar cane and sugar beets. its just processed empty calories lacking in nutrition in comparison to just nibbling on the actual plant it came from.
Sugar itself does not have any nutrition besides the calories from being sugar. The FRUIT has nutrients. Being in or out of a fruit changes nothing about the sugar itself, it's always the same chemical.
It's like saying when you buy meat in a store it's missing all the bone marrow for making soup. The meat doesn't have bone marrow ever, the animal the meat comes from does.
Nothing is stopping you from getting nutrients AND sugar. It's not an either/or situation.11 -
Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »vermilionflower wrote: »Fructose separated from the fruit is just like eating any other sugar, but that's completely different than eating fruit where the fructose is not separated. Straight sugar has zero nutrition, there's no healthy amount because it isn't nutritious.kshama2001 wrote: »Mom keeps seeing these types of articles in the Times:
https://www.nytimes.com/guides/smarterliving/how-to-stop-eating-sugar
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html
She also has a book on brain health with the same attitude. (I don't know the title off hand.)
I've started by asking her how many grams of added sugar she consumes per day. (I already know the answer is a lot less than the average American. For starters, she doesn't drink sweetened beverages.)
Now, I'd need more than "Lustig is a quack" or "Taubes is a quack." I'd need something reputable debunking their theories. (Not random blog posts.)
I've read here a lot that our bodies don't know the difference between sugar from fruit and sugar from added sugar - are there reputable sources for this?
BTW, she's not trying to lose weight and in fact struggles to stay above Underweight because she is very very active, especially for her age (80).
TIA
On fruit, fruit has vitamins/bioflavnoids/minerals and some fiber, than does refined sugar. Sugar are empty calories, devoid of healthy nutrients except for carbs.
You guys DO know that there's a minimum amount of calories your body needs, right? If you were only eating the nutrients your body needs, the essential fats and proteins, and carbs only from the most nutritious, green vegetables for their minerals and vitamins... you'd starve to death eventually because that's something like 800 calories.
I'm betting the guy in your profile picture doesn't get most of the calories he needs above the 800 you mention that are needed for minimum nutrition from foods with a lot of added sugar.
Nothing wrong with added sugars. The WHO and several other respected organizations provide guidelines on the amount of added sugars in a healthy diet.
Personally I try to stay about that level overall, but will splurge on occasion.
The WHO provides guidelines on the amount of sugar because of its calories vs. nutrition provided in an average person so as to not overeat calories. That's not really a problem in a situation where you've got all your nutrient needs checked already and still need 1000+ calories in your day.
So you would agree the 10% of calories from added sugars is reasonable for the vast majority of people?
Your original post said an person needs around 800 calories for basic nutrition. My point was successful athletes, people with 5% BF like your profile picture, etc aren't getting most their remainding caloric remaining needs over the 800 you've identified from nutritionally less dense foods. Maybe 1,000 calories or so if they need 4-5000 a day, but most of the extra calories are coming from nutritionally dense foods.
Googled the diets of some high level athletes:
JJ Watt
https://www.gq.com/story/jj-watt-real-life-diet
Jeff Engleston (2:10 marathoner)
https://runnersconnect.net/detailed-look-diet-elite-marathoner/
High level basketball players:
http://www.stack.com/a/basketball-nutrition-habits
Yeah, 10% is definitely a reasonable amount.
I'm just pointing out that there's no reason besides "not wanting to use your calories on it" for minimizing the amount of sugar you consume when your nutrient intakes would allow for eating it. You aren't getting nutrition brownie points for eating even more vegetables, even more healthy fats, even more protein than you need.
Oh, also guys like the one in my profile picture have higher needs for protein than the average person anyway.
Also I always have huge doubts about the accuracy of those "typical" meals for athletes or other celebrities. Just looking at the marathon runner, his breakfast is water (0 calories), black coffee (0 calories) and muesli with nonfat yogurt. Yet somehow that is supposed to come up at 650 calories. Müsli has about 450 cals for 100 grams, non-fat yogurt about 60-ish. If that's all the food he eats for breakfast, that's a lot of müsli, a lot of calories from added sugar in the müsli. And his typical day is only 2400 calories total. And I wouldn't count müsli as a particularly nutrient-dense food. It's better than cereal I guess. So, maybe not the best example of athletes who are eating so much in nutrient-dense foods.
The first link too, I'm too lazy to count the calories up, but for that guy to get to 4000-5000 calories or whatever from the listed foods, there has to be a lot of added butter etc. or really big portions for the meats. Depending on who you ask, that's not particularly healthy either.
Actually if you look at the article, the 2400 calorie day is the lowest of the 3 sample days for the marathoner. His higher days are 3000+ calories. He's 125 lbs
The first guy, JJ Watt is an American football player, about 6'5, 290 hovers around 10% BF. It's reported eats anywhere from 5-9000 calories a day, depending on training cycle. I've seen this a typical day for him. Huge quantities of generally nutrient dense food.
First Breakfast Oatmeal with blueberries and strawberries Six eggs Banana and apple Second breakfast Four eggs Two slices of wheat toast with peanut butter and banana and honey Two slices of wheat toast with jelly Lunch Three chicken breasts with whole wheat pasta and Italian dressing Side of broccoli Second lunch More chicken breasts with mashed sweet potatoes Steamed carrots Dinner Lamb chops with whole wheat pasta Grilled asparagus Second dinner Filet with whole wheat pasta Steamed broccoli
It's still over a quarter of his calories in müsli for that day. Now, I don't care, he can do that, but that's not something I'd personally think of when someone told me he gets all those great nutrient dense foods.
JJ Watt the same. The food looks nice, but I'd bet you he doesn't get 6000 of his 9000 calories from asparagus and broccoli, but from the meat, starches and added oils. Which is also fine in my eyes but I know for a fact there's people who would argue that that is not healthy.3 -
stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »vermilionflower wrote: »Fructose separated from the fruit is just like eating any other sugar, but that's completely different than eating fruit where the fructose is not separated. Straight sugar has zero nutrition, there's no healthy amount because it isn't nutritious.kshama2001 wrote: »Mom keeps seeing these types of articles in the Times:
https://www.nytimes.com/guides/smarterliving/how-to-stop-eating-sugar
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html
She also has a book on brain health with the same attitude. (I don't know the title off hand.)
I've started by asking her how many grams of added sugar she consumes per day. (I already know the answer is a lot less than the average American. For starters, she doesn't drink sweetened beverages.)
Now, I'd need more than "Lustig is a quack" or "Taubes is a quack." I'd need something reputable debunking their theories. (Not random blog posts.)
I've read here a lot that our bodies don't know the difference between sugar from fruit and sugar from added sugar - are there reputable sources for this?
BTW, she's not trying to lose weight and in fact struggles to stay above Underweight because she is very very active, especially for her age (80).
TIA
On fruit, fruit has vitamins/bioflavnoids/minerals and some fiber, than does refined sugar. Sugar are empty calories, devoid of healthy nutrients except for carbs.
You guys DO know that there's a minimum amount of calories your body needs, right? If you were only eating the nutrients your body needs, the essential fats and proteins, and carbs only from the most nutritious, green vegetables for their minerals and vitamins... you'd starve to death eventually because that's something like 800 calories.
I'm betting the guy in your profile picture doesn't get most of the calories he needs above the 800 you mention that are needed for minimum nutrition from foods with a lot of added sugar.
Nothing wrong with added sugars. The WHO and several other respected organizations provide guidelines on the amount of added sugars in a healthy diet.
Personally I try to stay about that level overall, but will splurge on occasion.
The WHO provides guidelines on the amount of sugar because of its calories vs. nutrition provided in an average person so as to not overeat calories. That's not really a problem in a situation where you've got all your nutrient needs checked already and still need 1000+ calories in your day.
So you would agree the 10% of calories from added sugars is reasonable for the vast majority of people?
Your original post said an person needs around 800 calories for basic nutrition. My point was successful athletes, people with 5% BF like your profile picture, etc aren't getting most their remainding caloric remaining needs over the 800 you've identified from nutritionally less dense foods. Maybe 1,000 calories or so if they need 4-5000 a day, but most of the extra calories are coming from nutritionally dense foods.
Googled the diets of some high level athletes:
JJ Watt
https://www.gq.com/story/jj-watt-real-life-diet
Jeff Engleston (2:10 marathoner)
https://runnersconnect.net/detailed-look-diet-elite-marathoner/
High level basketball players:
http://www.stack.com/a/basketball-nutrition-habits
Yeah, 10% is definitely a reasonable amount.
I'm just pointing out that there's no reason besides "not wanting to use your calories on it" for minimizing the amount of sugar you consume when your nutrient intakes would allow for eating it. You aren't getting nutrition brownie points for eating even more vegetables, even more healthy fats, even more protein than you need.
Oh, also guys like the one in my profile picture have higher needs for protein than the average person anyway.
Also I always have huge doubts about the accuracy of those "typical" meals for athletes or other celebrities. Just looking at the marathon runner, his breakfast is water (0 calories), black coffee (0 calories) and muesli with nonfat yogurt. Yet somehow that is supposed to come up at 650 calories. Müsli has about 450 cals for 100 grams, non-fat yogurt about 60-ish. If that's all the food he eats for breakfast, that's a lot of müsli, a lot of calories from added sugar in the müsli. And his typical day is only 2400 calories total. And I wouldn't count müsli as a particularly nutrient-dense food. It's better than cereal I guess. So, maybe not the best example of athletes who are eating so much in nutrient-dense foods.
The first link too, I'm too lazy to count the calories up, but for that guy to get to 4000-5000 calories or whatever from the listed foods, there has to be a lot of added butter etc. or really big portions for the meats. Depending on who you ask, that's not particularly healthy either.
Actually if you look at the article, the 2400 calorie day is the lowest of the 3 sample days for the marathoner. His higher days are 3000+ calories. He's 125 lbs
The first guy, JJ Watt is an American football player, about 6'5, 290 hovers around 10% BF. It's reported eats anywhere from 5-9000 calories a day, depending on training cycle. I've seen this a typical day for him. Huge quantities of generally nutrient dense food.
First Breakfast Oatmeal with blueberries and strawberries Six eggs Banana and apple Second breakfast Four eggs Two slices of wheat toast with peanut butter and banana and honey Two slices of wheat toast with jelly Lunch Three chicken breasts with whole wheat pasta and Italian dressing Side of broccoli Second lunch More chicken breasts with mashed sweet potatoes Steamed carrots Dinner Lamb chops with whole wheat pasta Grilled asparagus Second dinner Filet with whole wheat pasta Steamed broccoli
It's still over a quarter of his calories in müsli for that day. Now, I don't care, he can do that, but that's not something I'd personally think of when someone told me he gets all those great nutrient dense foods.
JJ Watt the same. The food looks nice, but I'd bet you he doesn't get 6000 of his 9000 calories from asparagus and broccoli, but from the meat, starches and added oils. Which is also fine in my eyes but I know for a fact there's people who would argue that that is not healthy.
This is a good point. I think people are coming from different starting points. When I hear of someone being neurotic about eating only healthy foods, I definitely assume they'd likely be adverse to eating lots of cals from muesli or pasta (whole wheat or no) or bread or sometimes maybe red meat or oils, and the diet posted above -- which seems quite balanced to me (although way more calories than I'd eat) has lots of those kinds of foods, plus jelly and dressing (which the anti processed crowd and the anti sugar crowds might object to), plus honey, peanut butter (doesn't specify "all natural"), and probably fewer veg than I eat in far fewer calories.
So while I think that's a good diet, I'd assume the critical types who are always saying we need to eat only healthy foods or avoid all added sugar (let alone people -- as in this thread -- saying fruit is bad) or avoid processed foods would NOT think that's a good diet.
Packerjohn seems to think we are suggesting a diet really different than the one identified when talking about things like not overstressing, eating basically healthfully, so on.
I think this is one of the reasons there is miscommunication here.
Someone struggling to eat enough calories isn't just eating mostly healthfully and keeping added sugar low. Indeed, kshama said her mom has ALWAYS done that, and that doesn't seem to cause her concern.6 -
Maybe your mother will like this article from the New York Times. A woman nearly dies from Scurvy from eliminating all fruit from her diet.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/02/28/magazine/a-painful-bruise-wouldnt-heal-it-took-several-hospital-visits-to-discover-why.html?referer=https://www.google.ca/
Bookmarking, thanks!3 -
This thread has been funny, eyerolling, informative, and helpful.
I love this place!
18 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »vermilionflower wrote: »Fructose separated from the fruit is just like eating any other sugar, but that's completely different than eating fruit where the fructose is not separated. Straight sugar has zero nutrition, there's no healthy amount because it isn't nutritious.kshama2001 wrote: »Mom keeps seeing these types of articles in the Times:
https://www.nytimes.com/guides/smarterliving/how-to-stop-eating-sugar
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html
She also has a book on brain health with the same attitude. (I don't know the title off hand.)
I've started by asking her how many grams of added sugar she consumes per day. (I already know the answer is a lot less than the average American. For starters, she doesn't drink sweetened beverages.)
Now, I'd need more than "Lustig is a quack" or "Taubes is a quack." I'd need something reputable debunking their theories. (Not random blog posts.)
I've read here a lot that our bodies don't know the difference between sugar from fruit and sugar from added sugar - are there reputable sources for this?
BTW, she's not trying to lose weight and in fact struggles to stay above Underweight because she is very very active, especially for her age (80).
TIA
On fruit, fruit has vitamins/bioflavnoids/minerals and some fiber, than does refined sugar. Sugar are empty calories, devoid of healthy nutrients except for carbs.
You guys DO know that there's a minimum amount of calories your body needs, right? If you were only eating the nutrients your body needs, the essential fats and proteins, and carbs only from the most nutritious, green vegetables for their minerals and vitamins... you'd starve to death eventually because that's something like 800 calories.
I'm betting the guy in your profile picture doesn't get most of the calories he needs above the 800 you mention that are needed for minimum nutrition from foods with a lot of added sugar.
Nothing wrong with added sugars. The WHO and several other respected organizations provide guidelines on the amount of added sugars in a healthy diet.
Personally I try to stay about that level overall, but will splurge on occasion.
The WHO provides guidelines on the amount of sugar because of its calories vs. nutrition provided in an average person so as to not overeat calories. That's not really a problem in a situation where you've got all your nutrient needs checked already and still need 1000+ calories in your day.
So you would agree the 10% of calories from added sugars is reasonable for the vast majority of people?
Your original post said an person needs around 800 calories for basic nutrition. My point was successful athletes, people with 5% BF like your profile picture, etc aren't getting most their remainding caloric remaining needs over the 800 you've identified from nutritionally less dense foods. Maybe 1,000 calories or so if they need 4-5000 a day, but most of the extra calories are coming from nutritionally dense foods.
Googled the diets of some high level athletes:
JJ Watt
https://www.gq.com/story/jj-watt-real-life-diet
Jeff Engleston (2:10 marathoner)
https://runnersconnect.net/detailed-look-diet-elite-marathoner/
High level basketball players:
http://www.stack.com/a/basketball-nutrition-habits
Yeah, 10% is definitely a reasonable amount.
I'm just pointing out that there's no reason besides "not wanting to use your calories on it" for minimizing the amount of sugar you consume when your nutrient intakes would allow for eating it. You aren't getting nutrition brownie points for eating even more vegetables, even more healthy fats, even more protein than you need.
Oh, also guys like the one in my profile picture have higher needs for protein than the average person anyway.
Also I always have huge doubts about the accuracy of those "typical" meals for athletes or other celebrities. Just looking at the marathon runner, his breakfast is water (0 calories), black coffee (0 calories) and muesli with nonfat yogurt. Yet somehow that is supposed to come up at 650 calories. Müsli has about 450 cals for 100 grams, non-fat yogurt about 60-ish. If that's all the food he eats for breakfast, that's a lot of müsli, a lot of calories from added sugar in the müsli. And his typical day is only 2400 calories total. And I wouldn't count müsli as a particularly nutrient-dense food. It's better than cereal I guess. So, maybe not the best example of athletes who are eating so much in nutrient-dense foods.
The first link too, I'm too lazy to count the calories up, but for that guy to get to 4000-5000 calories or whatever from the listed foods, there has to be a lot of added butter etc. or really big portions for the meats. Depending on who you ask, that's not particularly healthy either.
Actually if you look at the article, the 2400 calorie day is the lowest of the 3 sample days for the marathoner. His higher days are 3000+ calories. He's 125 lbs
The first guy, JJ Watt is an American football player, about 6'5, 290 hovers around 10% BF. It's reported eats anywhere from 5-9000 calories a day, depending on training cycle. I've seen this a typical day for him. Huge quantities of generally nutrient dense food.
First Breakfast Oatmeal with blueberries and strawberries Six eggs Banana and apple Second breakfast Four eggs Two slices of wheat toast with peanut butter and banana and honey Two slices of wheat toast with jelly Lunch Three chicken breasts with whole wheat pasta and Italian dressing Side of broccoli Second lunch More chicken breasts with mashed sweet potatoes Steamed carrots Dinner Lamb chops with whole wheat pasta Grilled asparagus Second dinner Filet with whole wheat pasta Steamed broccoli
It's still over a quarter of his calories in müsli for that day. Now, I don't care, he can do that, but that's not something I'd personally think of when someone told me he gets all those great nutrient dense foods.
JJ Watt the same. The food looks nice, but I'd bet you he doesn't get 6000 of his 9000 calories from asparagus and broccoli, but from the meat, starches and added oils. Which is also fine in my eyes but I know for a fact there's people who would argue that that is not healthy.
This is a good point. I think people are coming from different starting points. When I hear of someone being neurotic about eating only healthy foods, I definitely assume they'd likely be adverse to eating lots of cals from muesli or pasta (whole wheat or no) or bread or sometimes maybe red meat or oils, and the diet posted above -- which seems quite balanced to me (although way more calories than I'd eat) has lots of those kinds of foods, plus jelly and dressing (which the anti processed crowd and the anti sugar crowds might object to), plus honey, peanut butter (doesn't specify "all natural"), and probably fewer veg than I eat in far fewer calories.
So while I think that's a good diet, I'd assume the critical types who are always saying we need to eat only healthy foods or avoid all added sugar (let alone people -- as in this thread -- saying fruit is bad) or avoid processed foods would NOT think that's a good diet.
Packerjohn seems to think we are suggesting a diet really different than the one identified when talking about things like not overstressing, eating basically healthfully, so on.
I think this is one of the reasons there is miscommunication here.
Someone struggling to eat enough calories isn't just eating mostly healthfully and keeping added sugar low. Indeed, kshama said her mom has ALWAYS done that, and that doesn't seem to cause her concern.
I was questioning the following from @stevencloser
You guys DO know that there's a minimum amount of calories your body needs, right? If you were only eating the nutrients your body needs, the essential fats and proteins, and carbs only from the most nutritious, green vegetables for their minerals and vitamins... you'd starve to death eventually because that's something like 800 calories.
I may be misunderstanding his assertion, but to me, he's saying eat 800 calories to get "your nutrition", then implying eat whatever.
Personally, I believe, like the CDC, most mainstream dietitians, etc the vast majority of people should be getting 80-90% of their calories from nutrient dense foods, the rest from whatever. 800 calories isn't going to be 80-90% of the daily intake for most people.
My advice to the OP was to ensure that her mom is getting adequate nutrition and calories to support her health/activities. Whether or not those calories include added sugar is not important.5 -
stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »vermilionflower wrote: »Fructose separated from the fruit is just like eating any other sugar, but that's completely different than eating fruit where the fructose is not separated. Straight sugar has zero nutrition, there's no healthy amount because it isn't nutritious.kshama2001 wrote: »Mom keeps seeing these types of articles in the Times:
https://www.nytimes.com/guides/smarterliving/how-to-stop-eating-sugar
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html
She also has a book on brain health with the same attitude. (I don't know the title off hand.)
I've started by asking her how many grams of added sugar she consumes per day. (I already know the answer is a lot less than the average American. For starters, she doesn't drink sweetened beverages.)
Now, I'd need more than "Lustig is a quack" or "Taubes is a quack." I'd need something reputable debunking their theories. (Not random blog posts.)
I've read here a lot that our bodies don't know the difference between sugar from fruit and sugar from added sugar - are there reputable sources for this?
BTW, she's not trying to lose weight and in fact struggles to stay above Underweight because she is very very active, especially for her age (80).
TIA
On fruit, fruit has vitamins/bioflavnoids/minerals and some fiber, than does refined sugar. Sugar are empty calories, devoid of healthy nutrients except for carbs.
You guys DO know that there's a minimum amount of calories your body needs, right? If you were only eating the nutrients your body needs, the essential fats and proteins, and carbs only from the most nutritious, green vegetables for their minerals and vitamins... you'd starve to death eventually because that's something like 800 calories.
I'm betting the guy in your profile picture doesn't get most of the calories he needs above the 800 you mention that are needed for minimum nutrition from foods with a lot of added sugar.
Nothing wrong with added sugars. The WHO and several other respected organizations provide guidelines on the amount of added sugars in a healthy diet.
Personally I try to stay about that level overall, but will splurge on occasion.
The WHO provides guidelines on the amount of sugar because of its calories vs. nutrition provided in an average person so as to not overeat calories. That's not really a problem in a situation where you've got all your nutrient needs checked already and still need 1000+ calories in your day.
So you would agree the 10% of calories from added sugars is reasonable for the vast majority of people?
Your original post said an person needs around 800 calories for basic nutrition. My point was successful athletes, people with 5% BF like your profile picture, etc aren't getting most their remainding caloric remaining needs over the 800 you've identified from nutritionally less dense foods. Maybe 1,000 calories or so if they need 4-5000 a day, but most of the extra calories are coming from nutritionally dense foods.
Googled the diets of some high level athletes:
JJ Watt
https://www.gq.com/story/jj-watt-real-life-diet
Jeff Engleston (2:10 marathoner)
https://runnersconnect.net/detailed-look-diet-elite-marathoner/
High level basketball players:
http://www.stack.com/a/basketball-nutrition-habits
Yeah, 10% is definitely a reasonable amount.
I'm just pointing out that there's no reason besides "not wanting to use your calories on it" for minimizing the amount of sugar you consume when your nutrient intakes would allow for eating it. You aren't getting nutrition brownie points for eating even more vegetables, even more healthy fats, even more protein than you need.
Oh, also guys like the one in my profile picture have higher needs for protein than the average person anyway.
Also I always have huge doubts about the accuracy of those "typical" meals for athletes or other celebrities. Just looking at the marathon runner, his breakfast is water (0 calories), black coffee (0 calories) and muesli with nonfat yogurt. Yet somehow that is supposed to come up at 650 calories. Müsli has about 450 cals for 100 grams, non-fat yogurt about 60-ish. If that's all the food he eats for breakfast, that's a lot of müsli, a lot of calories from added sugar in the müsli. And his typical day is only 2400 calories total. And I wouldn't count müsli as a particularly nutrient-dense food. It's better than cereal I guess. So, maybe not the best example of athletes who are eating so much in nutrient-dense foods.
The first link too, I'm too lazy to count the calories up, but for that guy to get to 4000-5000 calories or whatever from the listed foods, there has to be a lot of added butter etc. or really big portions for the meats. Depending on who you ask, that's not particularly healthy either.
Actually if you look at the article, the 2400 calorie day is the lowest of the 3 sample days for the marathoner. His higher days are 3000+ calories. He's 125 lbs
The first guy, JJ Watt is an American football player, about 6'5, 290 hovers around 10% BF. It's reported eats anywhere from 5-9000 calories a day, depending on training cycle. I've seen this a typical day for him. Huge quantities of generally nutrient dense food.
First Breakfast Oatmeal with blueberries and strawberries Six eggs Banana and apple Second breakfast Four eggs Two slices of wheat toast with peanut butter and banana and honey Two slices of wheat toast with jelly Lunch Three chicken breasts with whole wheat pasta and Italian dressing Side of broccoli Second lunch More chicken breasts with mashed sweet potatoes Steamed carrots Dinner Lamb chops with whole wheat pasta Grilled asparagus Second dinner Filet with whole wheat pasta Steamed broccoli
It's still over a quarter of his calories in müsli for that day. Now, I don't care, he can do that, but that's not something I'd personally think of when someone told me he gets all those great nutrient dense foods.
JJ Watt the same. The food looks nice, but I'd bet you he doesn't get 6000 of his 9000 calories from asparagus and broccoli, but from the meat, starches and added oils. Which is also fine in my eyes but I know for a fact there's people who would argue that that is not healthy.
JJ Watt is a $100M investment by his employer. You better believe they have the best medical care, dietitians money can buy watching over him.
IMO, somebody arguing that his diet isn't directionally correct for him isn't worth listening to.2 -
Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »vermilionflower wrote: »Fructose separated from the fruit is just like eating any other sugar, but that's completely different than eating fruit where the fructose is not separated. Straight sugar has zero nutrition, there's no healthy amount because it isn't nutritious.kshama2001 wrote: »Mom keeps seeing these types of articles in the Times:
https://www.nytimes.com/guides/smarterliving/how-to-stop-eating-sugar
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html
She also has a book on brain health with the same attitude. (I don't know the title off hand.)
I've started by asking her how many grams of added sugar she consumes per day. (I already know the answer is a lot less than the average American. For starters, she doesn't drink sweetened beverages.)
Now, I'd need more than "Lustig is a quack" or "Taubes is a quack." I'd need something reputable debunking their theories. (Not random blog posts.)
I've read here a lot that our bodies don't know the difference between sugar from fruit and sugar from added sugar - are there reputable sources for this?
BTW, she's not trying to lose weight and in fact struggles to stay above Underweight because she is very very active, especially for her age (80).
TIA
On fruit, fruit has vitamins/bioflavnoids/minerals and some fiber, than does refined sugar. Sugar are empty calories, devoid of healthy nutrients except for carbs.
You guys DO know that there's a minimum amount of calories your body needs, right? If you were only eating the nutrients your body needs, the essential fats and proteins, and carbs only from the most nutritious, green vegetables for their minerals and vitamins... you'd starve to death eventually because that's something like 800 calories.
I'm betting the guy in your profile picture doesn't get most of the calories he needs above the 800 you mention that are needed for minimum nutrition from foods with a lot of added sugar.
Nothing wrong with added sugars. The WHO and several other respected organizations provide guidelines on the amount of added sugars in a healthy diet.
Personally I try to stay about that level overall, but will splurge on occasion.
The WHO provides guidelines on the amount of sugar because of its calories vs. nutrition provided in an average person so as to not overeat calories. That's not really a problem in a situation where you've got all your nutrient needs checked already and still need 1000+ calories in your day.
So you would agree the 10% of calories from added sugars is reasonable for the vast majority of people?
Your original post said an person needs around 800 calories for basic nutrition. My point was successful athletes, people with 5% BF like your profile picture, etc aren't getting most their remainding caloric remaining needs over the 800 you've identified from nutritionally less dense foods. Maybe 1,000 calories or so if they need 4-5000 a day, but most of the extra calories are coming from nutritionally dense foods.
Googled the diets of some high level athletes:
JJ Watt
https://www.gq.com/story/jj-watt-real-life-diet
Jeff Engleston (2:10 marathoner)
https://runnersconnect.net/detailed-look-diet-elite-marathoner/
High level basketball players:
http://www.stack.com/a/basketball-nutrition-habits
Yeah, 10% is definitely a reasonable amount.
I'm just pointing out that there's no reason besides "not wanting to use your calories on it" for minimizing the amount of sugar you consume when your nutrient intakes would allow for eating it. You aren't getting nutrition brownie points for eating even more vegetables, even more healthy fats, even more protein than you need.
Oh, also guys like the one in my profile picture have higher needs for protein than the average person anyway.
Also I always have huge doubts about the accuracy of those "typical" meals for athletes or other celebrities. Just looking at the marathon runner, his breakfast is water (0 calories), black coffee (0 calories) and muesli with nonfat yogurt. Yet somehow that is supposed to come up at 650 calories. Müsli has about 450 cals for 100 grams, non-fat yogurt about 60-ish. If that's all the food he eats for breakfast, that's a lot of müsli, a lot of calories from added sugar in the müsli. And his typical day is only 2400 calories total. And I wouldn't count müsli as a particularly nutrient-dense food. It's better than cereal I guess. So, maybe not the best example of athletes who are eating so much in nutrient-dense foods.
The first link too, I'm too lazy to count the calories up, but for that guy to get to 4000-5000 calories or whatever from the listed foods, there has to be a lot of added butter etc. or really big portions for the meats. Depending on who you ask, that's not particularly healthy either.
Actually if you look at the article, the 2400 calorie day is the lowest of the 3 sample days for the marathoner. His higher days are 3000+ calories. He's 125 lbs
The first guy, JJ Watt is an American football player, about 6'5, 290 hovers around 10% BF. It's reported eats anywhere from 5-9000 calories a day, depending on training cycle. I've seen this a typical day for him. Huge quantities of generally nutrient dense food.
First Breakfast Oatmeal with blueberries and strawberries Six eggs Banana and apple Second breakfast Four eggs Two slices of wheat toast with peanut butter and banana and honey Two slices of wheat toast with jelly Lunch Three chicken breasts with whole wheat pasta and Italian dressing Side of broccoli Second lunch More chicken breasts with mashed sweet potatoes Steamed carrots Dinner Lamb chops with whole wheat pasta Grilled asparagus Second dinner Filet with whole wheat pasta Steamed broccoli
It's still over a quarter of his calories in müsli for that day. Now, I don't care, he can do that, but that's not something I'd personally think of when someone told me he gets all those great nutrient dense foods.
JJ Watt the same. The food looks nice, but I'd bet you he doesn't get 6000 of his 9000 calories from asparagus and broccoli, but from the meat, starches and added oils. Which is also fine in my eyes but I know for a fact there's people who would argue that that is not healthy.
This is a good point. I think people are coming from different starting points. When I hear of someone being neurotic about eating only healthy foods, I definitely assume they'd likely be adverse to eating lots of cals from muesli or pasta (whole wheat or no) or bread or sometimes maybe red meat or oils, and the diet posted above -- which seems quite balanced to me (although way more calories than I'd eat) has lots of those kinds of foods, plus jelly and dressing (which the anti processed crowd and the anti sugar crowds might object to), plus honey, peanut butter (doesn't specify "all natural"), and probably fewer veg than I eat in far fewer calories.
So while I think that's a good diet, I'd assume the critical types who are always saying we need to eat only healthy foods or avoid all added sugar (let alone people -- as in this thread -- saying fruit is bad) or avoid processed foods would NOT think that's a good diet.
Packerjohn seems to think we are suggesting a diet really different than the one identified when talking about things like not overstressing, eating basically healthfully, so on.
I think this is one of the reasons there is miscommunication here.
Someone struggling to eat enough calories isn't just eating mostly healthfully and keeping added sugar low. Indeed, kshama said her mom has ALWAYS done that, and that doesn't seem to cause her concern.
I was questioning the following from @stevencloser
You guys DO know that there's a minimum amount of calories your body needs, right? If you were only eating the nutrients your body needs, the essential fats and proteins, and carbs only from the most nutritious, green vegetables for their minerals and vitamins... you'd starve to death eventually because that's something like 800 calories.
I may be misunderstanding his assertion, but to me, he's saying eat 800 calories to get "your nutrition", then implying eat whatever.
Personally, I believe, like the CDC, most mainstream dietitians, etc the vast majority of people should be getting 80-90% of their calories from nutrient dense foods, the rest from whatever. 800 calories isn't going to be 80-90% of the daily intake for most people.
My advice to the OP was to ensure that her mom is getting adequate nutrition and calories to support her health/activities. Whether or not those calories include added sugar is not important.
My assertion was that they were talking as if the only thing that matters are essential nutrients. That is obviously wrong, since you can get all essential nutrients within less than 1000 calories if you really tried to avoid anything non-essential like the plague and you'd end up dying if you did that, so that's silly.
So we're in a situation where on one hand, all your nutrition needs come up to at most half your calories, what are the rest going to be made up of? Obviously non-essential things.
What can those be? More nutrient-dense foods, non-nutrient-dense foods or a mix of the two.
What should you eat of those? Is there a right answer provided you do meet your nutritional needs?
A normal person won't min-max their essential nutrients, so they won't get to sub-1000 calories and have all their needs met. Their food will contain redundancy (more of some nutrients than they need) and non-essentials, basically always. Say there's another 50% markup for that. So we're at something like 1200 calories, give or take.
What should they eat to meet the rest of their calorie goals which could range anywhere from 1500 to 3000 and more?
More fruit/vegetables sounds nice. But the vitamins and minerals won't do anything for you if you're already meeting your needs. The water-soluble ones get excreted, the fat-soluble ones stored, which can in extreme cases lead to toxicity. So that's neither good nor bad in a normal situation, have them if you like.
More protein sounds nice too. There's actually a good amount of science showing that more protein, to a point, is beneficial above a person's minimum needs. So depending on your goals, that's a good idea to invest some extra calories in.
More fat? Can't say I've ever heard of benefits to eating significant amounts of fat above the body's needs, but they're also not bad to get more of, so have some if you like.
Carbs? Those obviously aren't essential so the amount you eat of them should be dependent on the amount of calories you have left after meeting your other needs and the amounts you get from things that meet your micronutrients.
So, apart from protein, I don't see any inherent benefit for a person to avoid certain foods in order to eat another above and beyond the body's needs because of a perceived "healthiness". Basically the "Clean eating" argument.4 -
Haven't read the replies, so I don't know if this has been said before, but why do you want to change her mind about this? She's 80, chances are she's not going to change her mind now, and there is no harm in not wanting to eat sugar if it's not affecting other aspects of her life. With family and real-life friends, I'm usually a live and let live kind of person. If they're not hurting themselves, what they believe and do is none of my business. They're adults and are entitled to their own choices. These kinds of discussions do more harm than good because they usually turn into headbutting sessions. I only discuss them here because this is a forum full of people who are here to lose weight and learn more about this elusive process.
If I were you I would leave it be unless these beliefs about sugar are causing issues like her being afraid of food, not wanting to socialize, or is outright stressed about the topic. In my experience, if an 80 year old says they will not eat something for whatever reason they're usually pretty set in their ways and this belief has become completely habitual and harmless, but I don't know your mom. Wanting to change her mind for the just sake of changing her mind you'll be fighting an uphill battle with little return on investment, in my opinion.
If there are details in this thread that I have missed which make my reply inapplicable, pretend you didn't read this, and my bad for replying without reading.3 -
stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »vermilionflower wrote: »Fructose separated from the fruit is just like eating any other sugar, but that's completely different than eating fruit where the fructose is not separated. Straight sugar has zero nutrition, there's no healthy amount because it isn't nutritious.kshama2001 wrote: »Mom keeps seeing these types of articles in the Times:
https://www.nytimes.com/guides/smarterliving/how-to-stop-eating-sugar
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html
She also has a book on brain health with the same attitude. (I don't know the title off hand.)
I've started by asking her how many grams of added sugar she consumes per day. (I already know the answer is a lot less than the average American. For starters, she doesn't drink sweetened beverages.)
Now, I'd need more than "Lustig is a quack" or "Taubes is a quack." I'd need something reputable debunking their theories. (Not random blog posts.)
I've read here a lot that our bodies don't know the difference between sugar from fruit and sugar from added sugar - are there reputable sources for this?
BTW, she's not trying to lose weight and in fact struggles to stay above Underweight because she is very very active, especially for her age (80).
TIA
On fruit, fruit has vitamins/bioflavnoids/minerals and some fiber, than does refined sugar. Sugar are empty calories, devoid of healthy nutrients except for carbs.
You guys DO know that there's a minimum amount of calories your body needs, right? If you were only eating the nutrients your body needs, the essential fats and proteins, and carbs only from the most nutritious, green vegetables for their minerals and vitamins... you'd starve to death eventually because that's something like 800 calories.
I'm betting the guy in your profile picture doesn't get most of the calories he needs above the 800 you mention that are needed for minimum nutrition from foods with a lot of added sugar.
Nothing wrong with added sugars. The WHO and several other respected organizations provide guidelines on the amount of added sugars in a healthy diet.
Personally I try to stay about that level overall, but will splurge on occasion.
The WHO provides guidelines on the amount of sugar because of its calories vs. nutrition provided in an average person so as to not overeat calories. That's not really a problem in a situation where you've got all your nutrient needs checked already and still need 1000+ calories in your day.
So you would agree the 10% of calories from added sugars is reasonable for the vast majority of people?
Your original post said an person needs around 800 calories for basic nutrition. My point was successful athletes, people with 5% BF like your profile picture, etc aren't getting most their remainding caloric remaining needs over the 800 you've identified from nutritionally less dense foods. Maybe 1,000 calories or so if they need 4-5000 a day, but most of the extra calories are coming from nutritionally dense foods.
Googled the diets of some high level athletes:
JJ Watt
https://www.gq.com/story/jj-watt-real-life-diet
Jeff Engleston (2:10 marathoner)
https://runnersconnect.net/detailed-look-diet-elite-marathoner/
High level basketball players:
http://www.stack.com/a/basketball-nutrition-habits
Yeah, 10% is definitely a reasonable amount.
I'm just pointing out that there's no reason besides "not wanting to use your calories on it" for minimizing the amount of sugar you consume when your nutrient intakes would allow for eating it. You aren't getting nutrition brownie points for eating even more vegetables, even more healthy fats, even more protein than you need.
Oh, also guys like the one in my profile picture have higher needs for protein than the average person anyway.
Also I always have huge doubts about the accuracy of those "typical" meals for athletes or other celebrities. Just looking at the marathon runner, his breakfast is water (0 calories), black coffee (0 calories) and muesli with nonfat yogurt. Yet somehow that is supposed to come up at 650 calories. Müsli has about 450 cals for 100 grams, non-fat yogurt about 60-ish. If that's all the food he eats for breakfast, that's a lot of müsli, a lot of calories from added sugar in the müsli. And his typical day is only 2400 calories total. And I wouldn't count müsli as a particularly nutrient-dense food. It's better than cereal I guess. So, maybe not the best example of athletes who are eating so much in nutrient-dense foods.
The first link too, I'm too lazy to count the calories up, but for that guy to get to 4000-5000 calories or whatever from the listed foods, there has to be a lot of added butter etc. or really big portions for the meats. Depending on who you ask, that's not particularly healthy either.
Actually if you look at the article, the 2400 calorie day is the lowest of the 3 sample days for the marathoner. His higher days are 3000+ calories. He's 125 lbs
The first guy, JJ Watt is an American football player, about 6'5, 290 hovers around 10% BF. It's reported eats anywhere from 5-9000 calories a day, depending on training cycle. I've seen this a typical day for him. Huge quantities of generally nutrient dense food.
First Breakfast Oatmeal with blueberries and strawberries Six eggs Banana and apple Second breakfast Four eggs Two slices of wheat toast with peanut butter and banana and honey Two slices of wheat toast with jelly Lunch Three chicken breasts with whole wheat pasta and Italian dressing Side of broccoli Second lunch More chicken breasts with mashed sweet potatoes Steamed carrots Dinner Lamb chops with whole wheat pasta Grilled asparagus Second dinner Filet with whole wheat pasta Steamed broccoli
It's still over a quarter of his calories in müsli for that day. Now, I don't care, he can do that, but that's not something I'd personally think of when someone told me he gets all those great nutrient dense foods.
JJ Watt the same. The food looks nice, but I'd bet you he doesn't get 6000 of his 9000 calories from asparagus and broccoli, but from the meat, starches and added oils. Which is also fine in my eyes but I know for a fact there's people who would argue that that is not healthy.
This is a good point. I think people are coming from different starting points. When I hear of someone being neurotic about eating only healthy foods, I definitely assume they'd likely be adverse to eating lots of cals from muesli or pasta (whole wheat or no) or bread or sometimes maybe red meat or oils, and the diet posted above -- which seems quite balanced to me (although way more calories than I'd eat) has lots of those kinds of foods, plus jelly and dressing (which the anti processed crowd and the anti sugar crowds might object to), plus honey, peanut butter (doesn't specify "all natural"), and probably fewer veg than I eat in far fewer calories.
So while I think that's a good diet, I'd assume the critical types who are always saying we need to eat only healthy foods or avoid all added sugar (let alone people -- as in this thread -- saying fruit is bad) or avoid processed foods would NOT think that's a good diet.
Packerjohn seems to think we are suggesting a diet really different than the one identified when talking about things like not overstressing, eating basically healthfully, so on.
I think this is one of the reasons there is miscommunication here.
Someone struggling to eat enough calories isn't just eating mostly healthfully and keeping added sugar low. Indeed, kshama said her mom has ALWAYS done that, and that doesn't seem to cause her concern.
I was questioning the following from @stevencloser
You guys DO know that there's a minimum amount of calories your body needs, right? If you were only eating the nutrients your body needs, the essential fats and proteins, and carbs only from the most nutritious, green vegetables for their minerals and vitamins... you'd starve to death eventually because that's something like 800 calories.
I may be misunderstanding his assertion, but to me, he's saying eat 800 calories to get "your nutrition", then implying eat whatever.
Personally, I believe, like the CDC, most mainstream dietitians, etc the vast majority of people should be getting 80-90% of their calories from nutrient dense foods, the rest from whatever. 800 calories isn't going to be 80-90% of the daily intake for most people.
My advice to the OP was to ensure that her mom is getting adequate nutrition and calories to support her health/activities. Whether or not those calories include added sugar is not important.
My assertion was that they were talking as if the only thing that matters are essential nutrients. That is obviously wrong, since you can get all essential nutrients within less than 1000 calories if you really tried to avoid anything non-essential like the plague and you'd end up dying if you did that, so that's silly.
So we're in a situation where on one hand, all your nutrition needs come up to at most half your calories, what are the rest going to be made up of? Obviously non-essential things.
What can those be? More nutrient-dense foods, non-nutrient-dense foods or a mix of the two.
What should you eat of those? Is there a right answer provided you do meet your nutritional needs?
A normal person won't min-max their essential nutrients, so they won't get to sub-1000 calories and have all their needs met. Their food will contain redundancy (more of some nutrients than they need) and non-essentials, basically always. Say there's another 50% markup for that. So we're at something like 1200 calories, give or take.
What should they eat to meet the rest of their calorie goals which could range anywhere from 1500 to 3000 and more?
More fruit/vegetables sounds nice. But the vitamins and minerals won't do anything for you if you're already meeting your needs. The water-soluble ones get excreted, the fat-soluble ones stored, which can in extreme cases lead to toxicity. So that's neither good nor bad in a normal situation, have them if you like.
More protein sounds nice too. There's actually a good amount of science showing that more protein, to a point, is beneficial above a person's minimum needs. So depending on your goals, that's a good idea to invest some extra calories in.
More fat? Can't say I've ever heard of benefits to eating significant amounts of fat above the body's needs, but they're also not bad to get more of, so have some if you like.
Carbs? Those obviously aren't essential so the amount you eat of them should be dependent on the amount of calories you have left after meeting your other needs and the amounts you get from things that meet your micronutrients.
So, apart from protein, I don't see any inherent benefit for a person to avoid certain foods in order to eat another above and beyond the body's needs because of a perceived "healthiness". Basically the "Clean eating" argument.
So you don't agree with the CDC/USDA and most dietitian's recommendation of 80-90% of calories from nutrient dense foods for most people?2 -
amuse: you didn't miss much it kinda fell off topic for the most part don't feel bad over it.kshama2001 wrote: »This thread has been funny, eyerolling, informative, and helpful.
I love this place!
even though it seemed to get off topic too much lol. i know i probably didn't help much their.
but anyways its always great to hear that people like your mom is still doing great at that age and hopefully she will have many more great years but let her have her fun she will figure it out. hopefully at lest you got something good out of this silliness even if its a good laugh.1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »vermilionflower wrote: »Fructose separated from the fruit is just like eating any other sugar, but that's completely different than eating fruit where the fructose is not separated. Straight sugar has zero nutrition, there's no healthy amount because it isn't nutritious.kshama2001 wrote: »Mom keeps seeing these types of articles in the Times:
https://www.nytimes.com/guides/smarterliving/how-to-stop-eating-sugar
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html
She also has a book on brain health with the same attitude. (I don't know the title off hand.)
I've started by asking her how many grams of added sugar she consumes per day. (I already know the answer is a lot less than the average American. For starters, she doesn't drink sweetened beverages.)
Now, I'd need more than "Lustig is a quack" or "Taubes is a quack." I'd need something reputable debunking their theories. (Not random blog posts.)
I've read here a lot that our bodies don't know the difference between sugar from fruit and sugar from added sugar - are there reputable sources for this?
BTW, she's not trying to lose weight and in fact struggles to stay above Underweight because she is very very active, especially for her age (80).
TIA
On fruit, fruit has vitamins/bioflavnoids/minerals and some fiber, than does refined sugar. Sugar are empty calories, devoid of healthy nutrients except for carbs.
You guys DO know that there's a minimum amount of calories your body needs, right? If you were only eating the nutrients your body needs, the essential fats and proteins, and carbs only from the most nutritious, green vegetables for their minerals and vitamins... you'd starve to death eventually because that's something like 800 calories.
I'm betting the guy in your profile picture doesn't get most of the calories he needs above the 800 you mention that are needed for minimum nutrition from foods with a lot of added sugar.
Nothing wrong with added sugars. The WHO and several other respected organizations provide guidelines on the amount of added sugars in a healthy diet.
Personally I try to stay about that level overall, but will splurge on occasion.
The WHO provides guidelines on the amount of sugar because of its calories vs. nutrition provided in an average person so as to not overeat calories. That's not really a problem in a situation where you've got all your nutrient needs checked already and still need 1000+ calories in your day.
So you would agree the 10% of calories from added sugars is reasonable for the vast majority of people?
Your original post said an person needs around 800 calories for basic nutrition. My point was successful athletes, people with 5% BF like your profile picture, etc aren't getting most their remainding caloric remaining needs over the 800 you've identified from nutritionally less dense foods. Maybe 1,000 calories or so if they need 4-5000 a day, but most of the extra calories are coming from nutritionally dense foods.
Googled the diets of some high level athletes:
JJ Watt
https://www.gq.com/story/jj-watt-real-life-diet
Jeff Engleston (2:10 marathoner)
https://runnersconnect.net/detailed-look-diet-elite-marathoner/
High level basketball players:
http://www.stack.com/a/basketball-nutrition-habits
Yeah, 10% is definitely a reasonable amount.
I'm just pointing out that there's no reason besides "not wanting to use your calories on it" for minimizing the amount of sugar you consume when your nutrient intakes would allow for eating it. You aren't getting nutrition brownie points for eating even more vegetables, even more healthy fats, even more protein than you need.
Oh, also guys like the one in my profile picture have higher needs for protein than the average person anyway.
Also I always have huge doubts about the accuracy of those "typical" meals for athletes or other celebrities. Just looking at the marathon runner, his breakfast is water (0 calories), black coffee (0 calories) and muesli with nonfat yogurt. Yet somehow that is supposed to come up at 650 calories. Müsli has about 450 cals for 100 grams, non-fat yogurt about 60-ish. If that's all the food he eats for breakfast, that's a lot of müsli, a lot of calories from added sugar in the müsli. And his typical day is only 2400 calories total. And I wouldn't count müsli as a particularly nutrient-dense food. It's better than cereal I guess. So, maybe not the best example of athletes who are eating so much in nutrient-dense foods.
The first link too, I'm too lazy to count the calories up, but for that guy to get to 4000-5000 calories or whatever from the listed foods, there has to be a lot of added butter etc. or really big portions for the meats. Depending on who you ask, that's not particularly healthy either.
Actually if you look at the article, the 2400 calorie day is the lowest of the 3 sample days for the marathoner. His higher days are 3000+ calories. He's 125 lbs
The first guy, JJ Watt is an American football player, about 6'5, 290 hovers around 10% BF. It's reported eats anywhere from 5-9000 calories a day, depending on training cycle. I've seen this a typical day for him. Huge quantities of generally nutrient dense food.
First Breakfast Oatmeal with blueberries and strawberries Six eggs Banana and apple Second breakfast Four eggs Two slices of wheat toast with peanut butter and banana and honey Two slices of wheat toast with jelly Lunch Three chicken breasts with whole wheat pasta and Italian dressing Side of broccoli Second lunch More chicken breasts with mashed sweet potatoes Steamed carrots Dinner Lamb chops with whole wheat pasta Grilled asparagus Second dinner Filet with whole wheat pasta Steamed broccoli
It's still over a quarter of his calories in müsli for that day. Now, I don't care, he can do that, but that's not something I'd personally think of when someone told me he gets all those great nutrient dense foods.
JJ Watt the same. The food looks nice, but I'd bet you he doesn't get 6000 of his 9000 calories from asparagus and broccoli, but from the meat, starches and added oils. Which is also fine in my eyes but I know for a fact there's people who would argue that that is not healthy.
This is a good point. I think people are coming from different starting points. When I hear of someone being neurotic about eating only healthy foods, I definitely assume they'd likely be adverse to eating lots of cals from muesli or pasta (whole wheat or no) or bread or sometimes maybe red meat or oils, and the diet posted above -- which seems quite balanced to me (although way more calories than I'd eat) has lots of those kinds of foods, plus jelly and dressing (which the anti processed crowd and the anti sugar crowds might object to), plus honey, peanut butter (doesn't specify "all natural"), and probably fewer veg than I eat in far fewer calories.
So while I think that's a good diet, I'd assume the critical types who are always saying we need to eat only healthy foods or avoid all added sugar (let alone people -- as in this thread -- saying fruit is bad) or avoid processed foods would NOT think that's a good diet.
Packerjohn seems to think we are suggesting a diet really different than the one identified when talking about things like not overstressing, eating basically healthfully, so on.
I think this is one of the reasons there is miscommunication here.
Someone struggling to eat enough calories isn't just eating mostly healthfully and keeping added sugar low. Indeed, kshama said her mom has ALWAYS done that, and that doesn't seem to cause her concern.
I was questioning the following from @stevencloser
You guys DO know that there's a minimum amount of calories your body needs, right? If you were only eating the nutrients your body needs, the essential fats and proteins, and carbs only from the most nutritious, green vegetables for their minerals and vitamins... you'd starve to death eventually because that's something like 800 calories.
I may be misunderstanding his assertion, but to me, he's saying eat 800 calories to get "your nutrition", then implying eat whatever.
Personally, I believe, like the CDC, most mainstream dietitians, etc the vast majority of people should be getting 80-90% of their calories from nutrient dense foods, the rest from whatever. 800 calories isn't going to be 80-90% of the daily intake for most people.
My advice to the OP was to ensure that her mom is getting adequate nutrition and calories to support her health/activities. Whether or not those calories include added sugar is not important.
My assertion was that they were talking as if the only thing that matters are essential nutrients. That is obviously wrong, since you can get all essential nutrients within less than 1000 calories if you really tried to avoid anything non-essential like the plague and you'd end up dying if you did that, so that's silly.
So we're in a situation where on one hand, all your nutrition needs come up to at most half your calories, what are the rest going to be made up of? Obviously non-essential things.
What can those be? More nutrient-dense foods, non-nutrient-dense foods or a mix of the two.
What should you eat of those? Is there a right answer provided you do meet your nutritional needs?
A normal person won't min-max their essential nutrients, so they won't get to sub-1000 calories and have all their needs met. Their food will contain redundancy (more of some nutrients than they need) and non-essentials, basically always. Say there's another 50% markup for that. So we're at something like 1200 calories, give or take.
What should they eat to meet the rest of their calorie goals which could range anywhere from 1500 to 3000 and more?
More fruit/vegetables sounds nice. But the vitamins and minerals won't do anything for you if you're already meeting your needs. The water-soluble ones get excreted, the fat-soluble ones stored, which can in extreme cases lead to toxicity. So that's neither good nor bad in a normal situation, have them if you like.
More protein sounds nice too. There's actually a good amount of science showing that more protein, to a point, is beneficial above a person's minimum needs. So depending on your goals, that's a good idea to invest some extra calories in.
More fat? Can't say I've ever heard of benefits to eating significant amounts of fat above the body's needs, but they're also not bad to get more of, so have some if you like.
Carbs? Those obviously aren't essential so the amount you eat of them should be dependent on the amount of calories you have left after meeting your other needs and the amounts you get from things that meet your micronutrients.
So, apart from protein, I don't see any inherent benefit for a person to avoid certain foods in order to eat another above and beyond the body's needs because of a perceived "healthiness". Basically the "Clean eating" argument.
So you don't agree with the CDC/USDA and most dietitian's recommendation of 80-90% of calories from nutrient dense foods for most people?
What part of "above and beyond the body's needs" was hard to understand? Most people aren't going to be getting their body's needs if they don't do this.4 -
stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »vermilionflower wrote: »Fructose separated from the fruit is just like eating any other sugar, but that's completely different than eating fruit where the fructose is not separated. Straight sugar has zero nutrition, there's no healthy amount because it isn't nutritious.kshama2001 wrote: »Mom keeps seeing these types of articles in the Times:
https://www.nytimes.com/guides/smarterliving/how-to-stop-eating-sugar
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html
She also has a book on brain health with the same attitude. (I don't know the title off hand.)
I've started by asking her how many grams of added sugar she consumes per day. (I already know the answer is a lot less than the average American. For starters, she doesn't drink sweetened beverages.)
Now, I'd need more than "Lustig is a quack" or "Taubes is a quack." I'd need something reputable debunking their theories. (Not random blog posts.)
I've read here a lot that our bodies don't know the difference between sugar from fruit and sugar from added sugar - are there reputable sources for this?
BTW, she's not trying to lose weight and in fact struggles to stay above Underweight because she is very very active, especially for her age (80).
TIA
On fruit, fruit has vitamins/bioflavnoids/minerals and some fiber, than does refined sugar. Sugar are empty calories, devoid of healthy nutrients except for carbs.
You guys DO know that there's a minimum amount of calories your body needs, right? If you were only eating the nutrients your body needs, the essential fats and proteins, and carbs only from the most nutritious, green vegetables for their minerals and vitamins... you'd starve to death eventually because that's something like 800 calories.
I'm betting the guy in your profile picture doesn't get most of the calories he needs above the 800 you mention that are needed for minimum nutrition from foods with a lot of added sugar.
Nothing wrong with added sugars. The WHO and several other respected organizations provide guidelines on the amount of added sugars in a healthy diet.
Personally I try to stay about that level overall, but will splurge on occasion.
The WHO provides guidelines on the amount of sugar because of its calories vs. nutrition provided in an average person so as to not overeat calories. That's not really a problem in a situation where you've got all your nutrient needs checked already and still need 1000+ calories in your day.
So you would agree the 10% of calories from added sugars is reasonable for the vast majority of people?
Your original post said an person needs around 800 calories for basic nutrition. My point was successful athletes, people with 5% BF like your profile picture, etc aren't getting most their remainding caloric remaining needs over the 800 you've identified from nutritionally less dense foods. Maybe 1,000 calories or so if they need 4-5000 a day, but most of the extra calories are coming from nutritionally dense foods.
Googled the diets of some high level athletes:
JJ Watt
https://www.gq.com/story/jj-watt-real-life-diet
Jeff Engleston (2:10 marathoner)
https://runnersconnect.net/detailed-look-diet-elite-marathoner/
High level basketball players:
http://www.stack.com/a/basketball-nutrition-habits
Yeah, 10% is definitely a reasonable amount.
I'm just pointing out that there's no reason besides "not wanting to use your calories on it" for minimizing the amount of sugar you consume when your nutrient intakes would allow for eating it. You aren't getting nutrition brownie points for eating even more vegetables, even more healthy fats, even more protein than you need.
Oh, also guys like the one in my profile picture have higher needs for protein than the average person anyway.
Also I always have huge doubts about the accuracy of those "typical" meals for athletes or other celebrities. Just looking at the marathon runner, his breakfast is water (0 calories), black coffee (0 calories) and muesli with nonfat yogurt. Yet somehow that is supposed to come up at 650 calories. Müsli has about 450 cals for 100 grams, non-fat yogurt about 60-ish. If that's all the food he eats for breakfast, that's a lot of müsli, a lot of calories from added sugar in the müsli. And his typical day is only 2400 calories total. And I wouldn't count müsli as a particularly nutrient-dense food. It's better than cereal I guess. So, maybe not the best example of athletes who are eating so much in nutrient-dense foods.
The first link too, I'm too lazy to count the calories up, but for that guy to get to 4000-5000 calories or whatever from the listed foods, there has to be a lot of added butter etc. or really big portions for the meats. Depending on who you ask, that's not particularly healthy either.
Actually if you look at the article, the 2400 calorie day is the lowest of the 3 sample days for the marathoner. His higher days are 3000+ calories. He's 125 lbs
The first guy, JJ Watt is an American football player, about 6'5, 290 hovers around 10% BF. It's reported eats anywhere from 5-9000 calories a day, depending on training cycle. I've seen this a typical day for him. Huge quantities of generally nutrient dense food.
First Breakfast Oatmeal with blueberries and strawberries Six eggs Banana and apple Second breakfast Four eggs Two slices of wheat toast with peanut butter and banana and honey Two slices of wheat toast with jelly Lunch Three chicken breasts with whole wheat pasta and Italian dressing Side of broccoli Second lunch More chicken breasts with mashed sweet potatoes Steamed carrots Dinner Lamb chops with whole wheat pasta Grilled asparagus Second dinner Filet with whole wheat pasta Steamed broccoli
It's still over a quarter of his calories in müsli for that day. Now, I don't care, he can do that, but that's not something I'd personally think of when someone told me he gets all those great nutrient dense foods.
JJ Watt the same. The food looks nice, but I'd bet you he doesn't get 6000 of his 9000 calories from asparagus and broccoli, but from the meat, starches and added oils. Which is also fine in my eyes but I know for a fact there's people who would argue that that is not healthy.
This is a good point. I think people are coming from different starting points. When I hear of someone being neurotic about eating only healthy foods, I definitely assume they'd likely be adverse to eating lots of cals from muesli or pasta (whole wheat or no) or bread or sometimes maybe red meat or oils, and the diet posted above -- which seems quite balanced to me (although way more calories than I'd eat) has lots of those kinds of foods, plus jelly and dressing (which the anti processed crowd and the anti sugar crowds might object to), plus honey, peanut butter (doesn't specify "all natural"), and probably fewer veg than I eat in far fewer calories.
So while I think that's a good diet, I'd assume the critical types who are always saying we need to eat only healthy foods or avoid all added sugar (let alone people -- as in this thread -- saying fruit is bad) or avoid processed foods would NOT think that's a good diet.
Packerjohn seems to think we are suggesting a diet really different than the one identified when talking about things like not overstressing, eating basically healthfully, so on.
I think this is one of the reasons there is miscommunication here.
Someone struggling to eat enough calories isn't just eating mostly healthfully and keeping added sugar low. Indeed, kshama said her mom has ALWAYS done that, and that doesn't seem to cause her concern.
I was questioning the following from @stevencloser
You guys DO know that there's a minimum amount of calories your body needs, right? If you were only eating the nutrients your body needs, the essential fats and proteins, and carbs only from the most nutritious, green vegetables for their minerals and vitamins... you'd starve to death eventually because that's something like 800 calories.
I may be misunderstanding his assertion, but to me, he's saying eat 800 calories to get "your nutrition", then implying eat whatever.
Personally, I believe, like the CDC, most mainstream dietitians, etc the vast majority of people should be getting 80-90% of their calories from nutrient dense foods, the rest from whatever. 800 calories isn't going to be 80-90% of the daily intake for most people.
My advice to the OP was to ensure that her mom is getting adequate nutrition and calories to support her health/activities. Whether or not those calories include added sugar is not important.
My assertion was that they were talking as if the only thing that matters are essential nutrients. That is obviously wrong, since you can get all essential nutrients within less than 1000 calories if you really tried to avoid anything non-essential like the plague and you'd end up dying if you did that, so that's silly.
So we're in a situation where on one hand, all your nutrition needs come up to at most half your calories, what are the rest going to be made up of? Obviously non-essential things.
What can those be? More nutrient-dense foods, non-nutrient-dense foods or a mix of the two.
What should you eat of those? Is there a right answer provided you do meet your nutritional needs?
A normal person won't min-max their essential nutrients, so they won't get to sub-1000 calories and have all their needs met. Their food will contain redundancy (more of some nutrients than they need) and non-essentials, basically always. Say there's another 50% markup for that. So we're at something like 1200 calories, give or take.
What should they eat to meet the rest of their calorie goals which could range anywhere from 1500 to 3000 and more?
More fruit/vegetables sounds nice. But the vitamins and minerals won't do anything for you if you're already meeting your needs. The water-soluble ones get excreted, the fat-soluble ones stored, which can in extreme cases lead to toxicity. So that's neither good nor bad in a normal situation, have them if you like.
More protein sounds nice too. There's actually a good amount of science showing that more protein, to a point, is beneficial above a person's minimum needs. So depending on your goals, that's a good idea to invest some extra calories in.
More fat? Can't say I've ever heard of benefits to eating significant amounts of fat above the body's needs, but they're also not bad to get more of, so have some if you like.
Carbs? Those obviously aren't essential so the amount you eat of them should be dependent on the amount of calories you have left after meeting your other needs and the amounts you get from things that meet your micronutrients.
So, apart from protein, I don't see any inherent benefit for a person to avoid certain foods in order to eat another above and beyond the body's needs because of a perceived "healthiness". Basically the "Clean eating" argument.
So you don't agree with the CDC/USDA and most dietitian's recommendation of 80-90% of calories from nutrient dense foods for most people?
What part of "above and beyond the body's needs" was hard to understand? Most people aren't going to be getting their body's needs if they don't do this.
You said earlier in this thread a typical person needs 800 calories to get their minimum basic nutrition.
So are you saying someone that needs 2000 calories to maintain weight can/shouild be eating 1200 calories of low nutrient food and expect good health?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.3 -
Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »vermilionflower wrote: »Fructose separated from the fruit is just like eating any other sugar, but that's completely different than eating fruit where the fructose is not separated. Straight sugar has zero nutrition, there's no healthy amount because it isn't nutritious.kshama2001 wrote: »Mom keeps seeing these types of articles in the Times:
https://www.nytimes.com/guides/smarterliving/how-to-stop-eating-sugar
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html
She also has a book on brain health with the same attitude. (I don't know the title off hand.)
I've started by asking her how many grams of added sugar she consumes per day. (I already know the answer is a lot less than the average American. For starters, she doesn't drink sweetened beverages.)
Now, I'd need more than "Lustig is a quack" or "Taubes is a quack." I'd need something reputable debunking their theories. (Not random blog posts.)
I've read here a lot that our bodies don't know the difference between sugar from fruit and sugar from added sugar - are there reputable sources for this?
BTW, she's not trying to lose weight and in fact struggles to stay above Underweight because she is very very active, especially for her age (80).
TIA
On fruit, fruit has vitamins/bioflavnoids/minerals and some fiber, than does refined sugar. Sugar are empty calories, devoid of healthy nutrients except for carbs.
You guys DO know that there's a minimum amount of calories your body needs, right? If you were only eating the nutrients your body needs, the essential fats and proteins, and carbs only from the most nutritious, green vegetables for their minerals and vitamins... you'd starve to death eventually because that's something like 800 calories.
I'm betting the guy in your profile picture doesn't get most of the calories he needs above the 800 you mention that are needed for minimum nutrition from foods with a lot of added sugar.
Nothing wrong with added sugars. The WHO and several other respected organizations provide guidelines on the amount of added sugars in a healthy diet.
Personally I try to stay about that level overall, but will splurge on occasion.
The WHO provides guidelines on the amount of sugar because of its calories vs. nutrition provided in an average person so as to not overeat calories. That's not really a problem in a situation where you've got all your nutrient needs checked already and still need 1000+ calories in your day.
So you would agree the 10% of calories from added sugars is reasonable for the vast majority of people?
Your original post said an person needs around 800 calories for basic nutrition. My point was successful athletes, people with 5% BF like your profile picture, etc aren't getting most their remainding caloric remaining needs over the 800 you've identified from nutritionally less dense foods. Maybe 1,000 calories or so if they need 4-5000 a day, but most of the extra calories are coming from nutritionally dense foods.
Googled the diets of some high level athletes:
JJ Watt
https://www.gq.com/story/jj-watt-real-life-diet
Jeff Engleston (2:10 marathoner)
https://runnersconnect.net/detailed-look-diet-elite-marathoner/
High level basketball players:
http://www.stack.com/a/basketball-nutrition-habits
Yeah, 10% is definitely a reasonable amount.
I'm just pointing out that there's no reason besides "not wanting to use your calories on it" for minimizing the amount of sugar you consume when your nutrient intakes would allow for eating it. You aren't getting nutrition brownie points for eating even more vegetables, even more healthy fats, even more protein than you need.
Oh, also guys like the one in my profile picture have higher needs for protein than the average person anyway.
Also I always have huge doubts about the accuracy of those "typical" meals for athletes or other celebrities. Just looking at the marathon runner, his breakfast is water (0 calories), black coffee (0 calories) and muesli with nonfat yogurt. Yet somehow that is supposed to come up at 650 calories. Müsli has about 450 cals for 100 grams, non-fat yogurt about 60-ish. If that's all the food he eats for breakfast, that's a lot of müsli, a lot of calories from added sugar in the müsli. And his typical day is only 2400 calories total. And I wouldn't count müsli as a particularly nutrient-dense food. It's better than cereal I guess. So, maybe not the best example of athletes who are eating so much in nutrient-dense foods.
The first link too, I'm too lazy to count the calories up, but for that guy to get to 4000-5000 calories or whatever from the listed foods, there has to be a lot of added butter etc. or really big portions for the meats. Depending on who you ask, that's not particularly healthy either.
Actually if you look at the article, the 2400 calorie day is the lowest of the 3 sample days for the marathoner. His higher days are 3000+ calories. He's 125 lbs
The first guy, JJ Watt is an American football player, about 6'5, 290 hovers around 10% BF. It's reported eats anywhere from 5-9000 calories a day, depending on training cycle. I've seen this a typical day for him. Huge quantities of generally nutrient dense food.
First Breakfast Oatmeal with blueberries and strawberries Six eggs Banana and apple Second breakfast Four eggs Two slices of wheat toast with peanut butter and banana and honey Two slices of wheat toast with jelly Lunch Three chicken breasts with whole wheat pasta and Italian dressing Side of broccoli Second lunch More chicken breasts with mashed sweet potatoes Steamed carrots Dinner Lamb chops with whole wheat pasta Grilled asparagus Second dinner Filet with whole wheat pasta Steamed broccoli
It's still over a quarter of his calories in müsli for that day. Now, I don't care, he can do that, but that's not something I'd personally think of when someone told me he gets all those great nutrient dense foods.
JJ Watt the same. The food looks nice, but I'd bet you he doesn't get 6000 of his 9000 calories from asparagus and broccoli, but from the meat, starches and added oils. Which is also fine in my eyes but I know for a fact there's people who would argue that that is not healthy.
This is a good point. I think people are coming from different starting points. When I hear of someone being neurotic about eating only healthy foods, I definitely assume they'd likely be adverse to eating lots of cals from muesli or pasta (whole wheat or no) or bread or sometimes maybe red meat or oils, and the diet posted above -- which seems quite balanced to me (although way more calories than I'd eat) has lots of those kinds of foods, plus jelly and dressing (which the anti processed crowd and the anti sugar crowds might object to), plus honey, peanut butter (doesn't specify "all natural"), and probably fewer veg than I eat in far fewer calories.
So while I think that's a good diet, I'd assume the critical types who are always saying we need to eat only healthy foods or avoid all added sugar (let alone people -- as in this thread -- saying fruit is bad) or avoid processed foods would NOT think that's a good diet.
Packerjohn seems to think we are suggesting a diet really different than the one identified when talking about things like not overstressing, eating basically healthfully, so on.
I think this is one of the reasons there is miscommunication here.
Someone struggling to eat enough calories isn't just eating mostly healthfully and keeping added sugar low. Indeed, kshama said her mom has ALWAYS done that, and that doesn't seem to cause her concern.
I was questioning the following from @stevencloser
You guys DO know that there's a minimum amount of calories your body needs, right? If you were only eating the nutrients your body needs, the essential fats and proteins, and carbs only from the most nutritious, green vegetables for their minerals and vitamins... you'd starve to death eventually because that's something like 800 calories.
I may be misunderstanding his assertion, but to me, he's saying eat 800 calories to get "your nutrition", then implying eat whatever.
That's not how I read him.
I think a key is that he says "carbs only from the most nutritious, green vegetables."
I see a lot of comments on MFP (often from so called clean eaters, although this thread isn't about that) that suggest that starch staples like rice, bread, pasta, oats, other cereal, so on, are not nutrient dense (sometimes even potatoes). But to fill up a normal sized calorie allotment you will need some of those things (and more if you are exercising a lot).
Similarly, essential fats and proteins is pretty low -- more might be "excessive" according to some (those who are still anti fat, which we run into here some, those who are anti red meat, which is more common). Yet it's fine in a healthful diet.Personally, I believe, like the CDC, most mainstream dietitians, etc the vast majority of people should be getting 80-90% of their calories from nutrient dense foods, the rest from whatever. 800 calories isn't going to be 80-90% of the daily intake for most people.
Yes, I agree that 80-90% from nutrient dense foods is best, but it's hard to say what counts as nutrient dense, as people seem to have different ideas. I base meals around protein and vegetables, but always add in things for taste (olive oil or a little cheese or I might use a higher cal/higher fat meat like leg of lamb or pulled pork on occasion or I eat the skin on my chicken), and I also will round out a meal with potatoes or rice or pasta. Some of that (the green veg) are far more nutrient dense than others, but I wouldn't think it was an issue to include cheese or, if I had a day that was lower cal (because less cheese, less chicken skin) to have a little chocolate as an extra. That kind of balance.
I think you are imagining different kinds of meals for "all nutrient dense" than I assume that means (and I think differently than stevencloser is assuming). I personally would not assume that someone thought pasta or muesli was "nutrient dense" although I don't think it's a bad thing to include as part of a nutrient dense meal or diet -- I would expect someone who was a "clean eater" or all about eating only the highest nutrient foods would be more restrictive than me, though (and indeed a nutritarian like Fuhrman is).My advice to the OP was to ensure that her mom is getting adequate nutrition and calories to support her health/activities. Whether or not those calories include added sugar is not important.
OP is not trying to push her mom to eat a bunch of added sugar. OP is concerned that her mom is stressing too much about what she eats, is losing weight (or has trouble keeping weight on), and is worried about even eating fruit.
Stress is bad for the health of people, probably especially older people even more, and while I realize it's not the problem that the average American most suffers from, probably, I do think that feeling like everything you eat is going to be bad for you -- which the diet wars contribute to -- is not a helpful state of mind. One thing the blue zones have going for them is less stress.6 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »vermilionflower wrote: »Fructose separated from the fruit is just like eating any other sugar, but that's completely different than eating fruit where the fructose is not separated. Straight sugar has zero nutrition, there's no healthy amount because it isn't nutritious.kshama2001 wrote: »Mom keeps seeing these types of articles in the Times:
https://www.nytimes.com/guides/smarterliving/how-to-stop-eating-sugar
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html
She also has a book on brain health with the same attitude. (I don't know the title off hand.)
I've started by asking her how many grams of added sugar she consumes per day. (I already know the answer is a lot less than the average American. For starters, she doesn't drink sweetened beverages.)
Now, I'd need more than "Lustig is a quack" or "Taubes is a quack." I'd need something reputable debunking their theories. (Not random blog posts.)
I've read here a lot that our bodies don't know the difference between sugar from fruit and sugar from added sugar - are there reputable sources for this?
BTW, she's not trying to lose weight and in fact struggles to stay above Underweight because she is very very active, especially for her age (80).
TIA
On fruit, fruit has vitamins/bioflavnoids/minerals and some fiber, than does refined sugar. Sugar are empty calories, devoid of healthy nutrients except for carbs.
You guys DO know that there's a minimum amount of calories your body needs, right? If you were only eating the nutrients your body needs, the essential fats and proteins, and carbs only from the most nutritious, green vegetables for their minerals and vitamins... you'd starve to death eventually because that's something like 800 calories.
I'm betting the guy in your profile picture doesn't get most of the calories he needs above the 800 you mention that are needed for minimum nutrition from foods with a lot of added sugar.
Nothing wrong with added sugars. The WHO and several other respected organizations provide guidelines on the amount of added sugars in a healthy diet.
Personally I try to stay about that level overall, but will splurge on occasion.
The WHO provides guidelines on the amount of sugar because of its calories vs. nutrition provided in an average person so as to not overeat calories. That's not really a problem in a situation where you've got all your nutrient needs checked already and still need 1000+ calories in your day.
So you would agree the 10% of calories from added sugars is reasonable for the vast majority of people?
Your original post said an person needs around 800 calories for basic nutrition. My point was successful athletes, people with 5% BF like your profile picture, etc aren't getting most their remainding caloric remaining needs over the 800 you've identified from nutritionally less dense foods. Maybe 1,000 calories or so if they need 4-5000 a day, but most of the extra calories are coming from nutritionally dense foods.
Googled the diets of some high level athletes:
JJ Watt
https://www.gq.com/story/jj-watt-real-life-diet
Jeff Engleston (2:10 marathoner)
https://runnersconnect.net/detailed-look-diet-elite-marathoner/
High level basketball players:
http://www.stack.com/a/basketball-nutrition-habits
Yeah, 10% is definitely a reasonable amount.
I'm just pointing out that there's no reason besides "not wanting to use your calories on it" for minimizing the amount of sugar you consume when your nutrient intakes would allow for eating it. You aren't getting nutrition brownie points for eating even more vegetables, even more healthy fats, even more protein than you need.
Oh, also guys like the one in my profile picture have higher needs for protein than the average person anyway.
Also I always have huge doubts about the accuracy of those "typical" meals for athletes or other celebrities. Just looking at the marathon runner, his breakfast is water (0 calories), black coffee (0 calories) and muesli with nonfat yogurt. Yet somehow that is supposed to come up at 650 calories. Müsli has about 450 cals for 100 grams, non-fat yogurt about 60-ish. If that's all the food he eats for breakfast, that's a lot of müsli, a lot of calories from added sugar in the müsli. And his typical day is only 2400 calories total. And I wouldn't count müsli as a particularly nutrient-dense food. It's better than cereal I guess. So, maybe not the best example of athletes who are eating so much in nutrient-dense foods.
The first link too, I'm too lazy to count the calories up, but for that guy to get to 4000-5000 calories or whatever from the listed foods, there has to be a lot of added butter etc. or really big portions for the meats. Depending on who you ask, that's not particularly healthy either.
Actually if you look at the article, the 2400 calorie day is the lowest of the 3 sample days for the marathoner. His higher days are 3000+ calories. He's 125 lbs
The first guy, JJ Watt is an American football player, about 6'5, 290 hovers around 10% BF. It's reported eats anywhere from 5-9000 calories a day, depending on training cycle. I've seen this a typical day for him. Huge quantities of generally nutrient dense food.
First Breakfast Oatmeal with blueberries and strawberries Six eggs Banana and apple Second breakfast Four eggs Two slices of wheat toast with peanut butter and banana and honey Two slices of wheat toast with jelly Lunch Three chicken breasts with whole wheat pasta and Italian dressing Side of broccoli Second lunch More chicken breasts with mashed sweet potatoes Steamed carrots Dinner Lamb chops with whole wheat pasta Grilled asparagus Second dinner Filet with whole wheat pasta Steamed broccoli
It's still over a quarter of his calories in müsli for that day. Now, I don't care, he can do that, but that's not something I'd personally think of when someone told me he gets all those great nutrient dense foods.
JJ Watt the same. The food looks nice, but I'd bet you he doesn't get 6000 of his 9000 calories from asparagus and broccoli, but from the meat, starches and added oils. Which is also fine in my eyes but I know for a fact there's people who would argue that that is not healthy.
This is a good point. I think people are coming from different starting points. When I hear of someone being neurotic about eating only healthy foods, I definitely assume they'd likely be adverse to eating lots of cals from muesli or pasta (whole wheat or no) or bread or sometimes maybe red meat or oils, and the diet posted above -- which seems quite balanced to me (although way more calories than I'd eat) has lots of those kinds of foods, plus jelly and dressing (which the anti processed crowd and the anti sugar crowds might object to), plus honey, peanut butter (doesn't specify "all natural"), and probably fewer veg than I eat in far fewer calories.
So while I think that's a good diet, I'd assume the critical types who are always saying we need to eat only healthy foods or avoid all added sugar (let alone people -- as in this thread -- saying fruit is bad) or avoid processed foods would NOT think that's a good diet.
Packerjohn seems to think we are suggesting a diet really different than the one identified when talking about things like not overstressing, eating basically healthfully, so on.
I think this is one of the reasons there is miscommunication here.
Someone struggling to eat enough calories isn't just eating mostly healthfully and keeping added sugar low. Indeed, kshama said her mom has ALWAYS done that, and that doesn't seem to cause her concern.
I was questioning the following from @stevencloser
You guys DO know that there's a minimum amount of calories your body needs, right? If you were only eating the nutrients your body needs, the essential fats and proteins, and carbs only from the most nutritious, green vegetables for their minerals and vitamins... you'd starve to death eventually because that's something like 800 calories.
I may be misunderstanding his assertion, but to me, he's saying eat 800 calories to get "your nutrition", then implying eat whatever.
That's not how I read him.
I think a key is that he says "carbs only from the most nutritious, green vegetables."
I see a lot of comments on MFP (often from so called clean eaters, although this thread isn't about that) that suggest that starch staples like rice, bread, pasta, oats, other cereal, so on, are not nutrient dense (sometimes even potatoes). But to fill up a normal sized calorie allotment you will need some of those things (and more if you are exercising a lot).
Similarly, essential fats and proteins is pretty low -- more might be "excessive" according to some (those who are still anti fat, which we run into here some, those who are anti red meat, which is more common). Yet it's fine in a healthful diet.Personally, I believe, like the CDC, most mainstream dietitians, etc the vast majority of people should be getting 80-90% of their calories from nutrient dense foods, the rest from whatever. 800 calories isn't going to be 80-90% of the daily intake for most people.
Yes, I agree that 80-90% from nutrient dense foods is best, but it's hard to say what counts as nutrient dense, as people seem to have different ideas. I base meals around protein and vegetables, but always add in things for taste (olive oil or a little cheese or I might use a higher cal/higher fat meat like leg of lamb or pulled pork on occasion or I eat the skin on my chicken), and I also will round out a meal with potatoes or rice or pasta. Some of that (the green veg) are far more nutrient dense than others, but I wouldn't think it was an issue to include cheese or, if I had a day that was lower cal (because less cheese, less chicken skin) to have a little chocolate as an extra. That kind of balance.
I think you are imagining different kinds of meals for "all nutrient dense" than I assume that means (and I think differently than stevencloser is assuming). I personally would not assume that someone thought pasta or muesli was "nutrient dense" although I don't think it's a bad thing to include as part of a nutrient dense meal or diet -- I would expect someone who was a "clean eater" or all about eating only the highest nutrient foods would be more restrictive than me, though (and indeed a nutritarian like Fuhrman is).My advice to the OP was to ensure that her mom is getting adequate nutrition and calories to support her health/activities. Whether or not those calories include added sugar is not important.
OP is not trying to push her mom to eat a bunch of added sugar. OP is concerned that her mom is stressing too much about what she eats, is losing weight (or has trouble keeping weight on), and is worried about even eating fruit.
Stress is bad for the health of people, probably especially older people even more, and while I realize it's not the problem that the average American most suffers from, probably, I do think that feeling like everything you eat is going to be bad for you -- which the diet wars contribute to -- is not a helpful state of mind. One thing the blue zones have going for them is less stress.
Exactly--older people get anxious, often for no good reason and this affects their health and eating patterns. The media is pushing that certain foods are bad for you, and you must be informed, etc., etc. This adds to the stress. As I'm getting older, I understand this. I didn't understand even 10 years ago. So OP, what can you do? Not much, but try to calm her and reason a bit. It may not work, but it's worth a try. I'm lucky, my 88 yr old mother was a nurse and knows more than I do. A few years ago she showed up in Italy to visit with her bag of protein powder for breakfast. It got me started.7 -
My mom (78) has a typical breakfast of cereal, toast, and fruit. "But I don't eat many carbs." And she's a retired nurse.4
-
I am 57 and trying to develop a more healthy lifestyle so I can live to 80 and beyond! Your mom sounds great. What I have recently learned is that eating low glycemic impact foods and keeping your body in the center position of being in a less alkaline state is key to optimal health. Look online for the list of these foods and you will find certain fruits and vegetables are higher on this list than others.
With all of that said, we all have to live and life is short so maybe 80/20% lifestyle will allow you to be healthy and also have some fun.26 -
I missed something, I think. Is the OP's mother cutting out all sugar including fruit or just added granulated sugar? If she's cutting out fruit, that's not good, but I didn't read that.1
-
scontino18 wrote: »I am 57 and trying to develop a more healthy lifestyle so I can live to 80 and beyond! Your mom sounds great. What I have recently learned is that eating low glycemic impact foods and keeping your body in the center position of being in a less alkaline state is key to optimal health. Look online for the list of these foods and you will find certain fruits and vegetables are higher on this list than others.
With all of that said, we all have to live and life is short so maybe 80/20% lifestyle will allow you to be healthy and also have some fun.
12
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
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions