The Skinny on Obesity (or: "Calories are not created equal")
Replies
-
People are so rude! wow, why can't someone post something and not get all of the sarcasm and speculation. if you aren't interested just don't post it...even if it's alreay in the threads 1000 times you don't have to be rude.
OP, thanks for sharing, I have not seen this yet
Not when it's just a bunch of diatribe and bull****...bull**** gets called bull**** around these parts...contrary to popular belief, most of us don't shoot rainbows and daisies out of our *kitten*...0 -
Let the refutation ensue...
Frankly and in all honesty, I don't give a **** what other people eat. Have ice cream for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Good for you. Sugar rocks your world and you are proud of that...Rock away...
And I am sorry if I let the cat out of the bag...0 -
This is why I only eat the left twix. The right twix calories cause cancer of the diabeetus.
LMAO. Hilarious.
Sugar is naturally occurring. You can't cut it completely out of your diet, otherwise you cut out fruit, dairy, bread... So, what do you eat if you aren't allowed to have sugar? Only vegetables? I could never do that...0 -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sKxfImHkFI
Documentary mini-series on the dangers of sugar, the Industrial Age diet and how it impacts y/our struggle with weight.
NOTE: While a calorie may be a calorie in terms of energy burn, there are a LOT of other variables like how they burn and their impact on the rest of the body (and its systems) that make some calories a much better choice than others. For those who wonder, here's why.
Posting any information in the general forums, that even remotely suggests that the quality of food we ingest affects our body/health, is futile. Because huge percentage of the people here (at least the ones that bother commenting) can't follow the logic that the human body is a complex system and that WHAT we eat does affect how our body operates. The answer to anything and everything is merely the simplistic "calories in/calories out" and those of us that report health improvements by changing WHAT we eat are completely ridiculed, even though there are so many of us reporting the same experience that many doctors can no longer ignore it. I suspect that it's because most of the "calories in/calories out/eat anything/avoid fat crowd are so malnourished that their brains are just no longer functioning optimally. I just can't follow the "logic" that what we eat does NOT affect health. Besides that my own real life experience blows that theory to shreds; as well as the multi-generational experiences of the many aboriginal groups that I have lived amongst.0 -
People are so rude! wow, why can't someone post something and not get all of the sarcasm and speculation. if you aren't interested just don't post it...even if it's alreay in the threads 1000 times you don't have to be rude.
OP, thanks for sharing, I have not seen this yet
It's not rude to disprove inaccurate information. We ARE interested and we DO post because we don't want bad information getting passed around to people who don't know the real science behind weight loss. And I wouldn't really call it speculation. It's science.
I find it hard to believe that all the complainers on these 5 pages of replies actually watched the 60-minute video. So it is rude to disprove information when you don't even know what the information is.
OP: Thanks for taking the time to share this. Some of us realize you had other things you could be doing, but in an effort to help those that might be helped by the video, you took the time to share the information. Keep it up! If there's a "Cliff's Notes" version of the video, I'd totally watch it.0 -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sKxfImHkFI
Documentary mini-series on the dangers of sugar, the Industrial Age diet and how it impacts y/our struggle with weight.
NOTE: While a calorie may be a calorie in terms of energy burn, there are a LOT of other variables like how they burn and their impact on the rest of the body (and its systems) that make some calories a much better choice than others. For those who wonder, here's why.
Posting any information in the general forums, that even remotely suggests that the quality of food we ingest affects our body/health, is futile. Because huge percentage of the people here (at least the ones that bother commenting) can't follow the logic that the human body is a complex system and that WHAT we eat does affect how our body operates. The answer to anything and everything is merely the simplistic "calories in/calories out" and those of us that report health improvements by changing WHAT we eat are completely ridiculed, even though there are so many of us reporting the same experience that many doctors can no longer ignore it. I suspect that it's because most of the "calories in/calories out/eat anything/avoid fat crowd are so malnourished that their brains are just no longer functioning optimally. I just can't follow the "logic" that what we eat does NOT affect health. Besides that my own real life experience blows that theory to shreds; as well as the multi-generational experiences of the many aboriginal groups that I have lived amongst.
Everything you post here is completely contrary to fact.
NO ONE says that calories are all that matter. NO ONE.
A ton of people here say that NUTRIENTS matter. It's not whether something is "refined" or "clean" or "dirty" or "processed" or "natural." What matters is the nutrients you provide your body.0 -
LMFAO!!
This0 -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sKxfImHkFI
Documentary mini-series on the dangers of sugar, the Industrial Age diet and how it impacts y/our struggle with weight.
NOTE: While a calorie may be a calorie in terms of energy burn, there are a LOT of other variables like how they burn and their impact on the rest of the body (and its systems) that make some calories a much better choice than others. For those who wonder, here's why.
Posting any information in the general forums, that even remotely suggests that the quality of food we ingest affects our body/health, is futile. Because huge percentage of the people here (at least the ones that bother commenting) can't follow the logic that the human body is a complex system and that WHAT we eat does affect how our body operates. The answer to anything and everything is merely the simplistic "calories in/calories out" and those of us that report health improvements by changing WHAT we eat are completely ridiculed, even though there are so many of us reporting the same experience that many doctors can no longer ignore it. I suspect that it's because most of the "calories in/calories out/eat anything/avoid fat crowd are so malnourished that their brains are just no longer functioning optimally. I just can't follow the "logic" that what we eat does NOT affect health. Besides that my own real life experience blows that theory to shreds; as well as the multi-generational experiences of the many aboriginal groups that I have lived amongst.
I think you misunderstand what "calories in/calories out" is actually in reference to.0 -
People are so rude! wow, why can't someone post something and not get all of the sarcasm and speculation. if you aren't interested just don't post it...even if it's alreay in the threads 1000 times you don't have to be rude.
OP, thanks for sharing, I have not seen this yet
It's not rude to disprove inaccurate information. We ARE interested and we DO post because we don't want bad information getting passed around to people who don't know the real science behind weight loss. And I wouldn't really call it speculation. It's science.
I find it hard to believe that all the complainers on these 5 pages of replies actually watched the 60-minute video. So it is rude to disprove information when you don't even know what the information is.
OP: Thanks for taking the time to share this. Some of us realize you had other things you could be doing, but in an effort to help those that might be helped by the video, you took the time to share the information. Keep it up! If there's a "Cliff's Notes" version of the video, I'd totally watch it.
This "documentary" has been out for a while now. Many of us have had a chance to watch it, read about it, study it, research it, etc. prior to this thread.If there's a "Cliff's Notes" version of the video, I'd totally watch it.
Oh, wait. You yourself haven't watched it but you're defending it against those that you assume also haven't watched it? Interesting. What a remarkably presumptuous and hypocritical position.0 -
The American Journal of Nutrition appears to disagree with you.
Study: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/5/899S.full0 -
People are so rude! wow, why can't someone post something and not get all of the sarcasm and speculation. if you aren't interested just don't post it...even if it's alreay in the threads 1000 times you don't have to be rude.
OP, thanks for sharing, I have not seen this yet
It's not rude to disprove inaccurate information. We ARE interested and we DO post because we don't want bad information getting passed around to people who don't know the real science behind weight loss. And I wouldn't really call it speculation. It's science.
I find it hard to believe that all the complainers on these 5 pages of replies actually watched the 60-minute video. So it is rude to disprove information when you don't even know what the information is.
OP: Thanks for taking the time to share this. Some of us realize you had other things you could be doing, but in an effort to help those that might be helped by the video, you took the time to share the information. Keep it up! If there's a "Cliff's Notes" version of the video, I'd totally watch it.
So you're approving of a video you didn't watch but don't like that people may disprove a video they maybe didn't watch. Seems legit.
This isn't the first time this video has been discussed on these forums (and far from the first time the evils of sugar have been discussed) but if you think taking 60 seconds to copy and paste a link and summary should protect you and your subject matter from criticism more power to you.0 -
People are so rude! wow, why can't someone post something and not get all of the sarcasm and speculation. if you aren't interested just don't post it...even if it's alreay in the threads 1000 times you don't have to be rude.
OP, thanks for sharing, I have not seen this yet
It's not rude to disprove inaccurate information. We ARE interested and we DO post because we don't want bad information getting passed around to people who don't know the real science behind weight loss. And I wouldn't really call it speculation. It's science.
I find it hard to believe that all the complainers on these 5 pages of replies actually watched the 60-minute video. So it is rude to disprove information when you don't even know what the information is.
OP: Thanks for taking the time to share this. Some of us realize you had other things you could be doing, but in an effort to help those that might be helped by the video, you took the time to share the information. Keep it up! If there's a "Cliff's Notes" version of the video, I'd totally watch it.
This "documentary" has been out for a while now. Many of us have had a chance to watch it, read about it, study it, research it, etc. prior to this thread.If there's a "Cliff's Notes" version of the video, I'd totally watch it.
Oh, wait. You yourself haven't watched it but you're defending it against those that you assume also haven't watched it? Interesting. What a remarkably presumptuous and hypocritical position.
BAHAHAHAHAHA0 -
People are so rude! wow, why can't someone post something and not get all of the sarcasm and speculation. if you aren't interested just don't post it...even if it's alreay in the threads 1000 times you don't have to be rude.
OP, thanks for sharing, I have not seen this yet
It's not rude to disprove inaccurate information. We ARE interested and we DO post because we don't want bad information getting passed around to people who don't know the real science behind weight loss. And I wouldn't really call it speculation. It's science.
I find it hard to believe that all the complainers on these 5 pages of replies actually watched the 60-minute video. So it is rude to disprove information when you don't even know what the information is.
OP: Thanks for taking the time to share this. Some of us realize you had other things you could be doing, but in an effort to help those that might be helped by the video, you took the time to share the information. Keep it up! If there's a "Cliff's Notes" version of the video, I'd totally watch it.
This "documentary" has been out for a while now. Many of us have had a chance to watch it, read about it, study it, research it, etc. prior to this thread.If there's a "Cliff's Notes" version of the video, I'd totally watch it.
Oh, wait. You yourself haven't watched it but you're defending it against those that you assume also haven't watched it? Interesting. What a remarkably presumptuous and hypocritical position.
BAHAHAHAHAHA
Pointing out hypocrisy? *gasp!* How rude!0 -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sKxfImHkFI
Documentary mini-series on the dangers of sugar, the Industrial Age diet and how it impacts y/our struggle with weight.
NOTE: While a calorie may be a calorie in terms of energy burn, there are a LOT of other variables like how they burn and their impact on the rest of the body (and its systems) that make some calories a much better choice than others. For those who wonder, here's why.
Posting any information in the general forums, that even remotely suggests that the quality of food we ingest affects our body/health, is futile. Because huge percentage of the people here (at least the ones that bother commenting) can't follow the logic that the human body is a complex system and that WHAT we eat does affect how our body operates. The answer to anything and everything is merely the simplistic "calories in/calories out" and those of us that report health improvements by changing WHAT we eat are completely ridiculed, even though there are so many of us reporting the same experience that many doctors can no longer ignore it. I suspect that it's because most of the "calories in/calories out/eat anything/avoid fat crowd are so malnourished that their brains are just no longer functioning optimally. I just can't follow the "logic" that what we eat does NOT affect health. Besides that my own real life experience blows that theory to shreds; as well as the multi-generational experiences of the many aboriginal groups that I have lived amongst.
Everything you post here is completely contrary to fact.
NO ONE says that calories are all that matter. NO ONE.
A ton of people here say that NUTRIENTS matter. It's not whether something is "refined" or "clean" or "dirty" or "processed" or "natural." What matters is the nutrients you provide your body.
You know the drill...those who believe that CICO is the principal/primary driver in weight gain/loss automatically believe that the nutrient quality of the food is irrelevant. Don't bother correcting that...because everyone *knows* it to be true...
...because strawmen are easier (and more fun) to tear down.
Edit: because homonym abuse must stop.0 -
most of you are very young but back in the 1960's when the soda TAB came around it was the rage.. wow.. it was not bad and then they did a test on it ... you could get cancer from it. hahahahah ok I was in college and in a school of Teaching for Medical we did our tests and the Math group did the math break it down
if you drink 14 12 oz bottle a day for a year yes you will get Cancer the Rats provided that information BUT...
if you are human and drink that much
1 your body can not process that much fluid in a day..
2 in a week your lungs will fill with fluid and you will drowned from the extra water..
so on the bottom like your body will kill you with water that it can not dump out of you as fast as you can drink it..
yep you will die but not of Cancer.. and Red M&M's will not do this either hahahahahhaha
have had my Breast Cancer and WON Why its Family Kids Family do what the Winners of your Family did and live to the
year 2099....
Come on now, who drinks 14 12oz sodas in a day? I mean what are you even trying to say in your statement.
I did not understand this either...translation?0 -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sKxfImHkFI
Documentary mini-series on the dangers of sugar, the Industrial Age diet and how it impacts y/our struggle with weight.
NOTE: While a calorie may be a calorie in terms of energy burn, there are a LOT of other variables like how they burn and their impact on the rest of the body (and its systems) that make some calories a much better choice than others. For those who wonder, here's why.
I rarely if ever use the dislike button on YouTube. After watching part of this video I felt a strong moral responsibility to do so today.
I don't trust scientists who cannot perform basic math:
Watch 9:55 – 10:35 in the video
He claims that 80% of obese people have (his definition of) metabolic diseases
He claims that 40% of skinny/normal (he uses both terms) weight people have metabolic diseases
He then "does the math” (10:25 in the video) and claims this totals 60% of America
This would only be true if the obese group (>30 BMI by CDC criteria) was the exact same size as the other group (which it is not).
http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html
Since even his most basic math is flawed how can you trust his other data or cause and effect claims?
Actually, his math is something like this:
60% of people in America = Obese/Overweight
80% of 60% of people in America = Obese/Overweight + Metabolic X = 48% of the American Population
40% of people in America = Skinny/Normal Weight
40% of 40% of people in America = Skinny/Normal Weight + Metabolic X = 16% of the American Population
16% + 48% = 64% of American Population with Metabolic X or approximately 60%.
So even though they did a poor job of the display on the video and I think the editing and splicing of the overall interview seems to have skipped points or information, the numbers do add up to ~60%.
You are right about the video not being properly edited. Even if we assume he meant to add the overweight group to the obese group 60% still does not equal 64%.
In addition, according to government statistics 68.8% of American adults are overweight/obese and 31.2% are normal weight/underweight.
"The data presented in this publication are from two surveys conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC): the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) and the National Health Interview Survey"
http://www.win.niddk.nih.gov/statistics/
With those numbers:
.8 * 68.8% = 55.04%
.4 * 31.2% = 12.48%
55.04% + 12.48% = 67.52%
60% does not equal 67.52%
I stand by my statement0 -
people didnt get diabetic from eating berries and apples
It take 8 feet of sugar cane, imagine chewing on that , to get the equivalent amt. of sugar of one can of soda
ahhh yes the "fruit sugar is good " argument but "soda sugar" is bad argument...tried and tested as absolute garbage...
I don't think it's that some sugar is "good" while others are "bad". I think it's more of it's a lot harder to eat too much sugar from fruit than it is to eat too much sugar from oreos & snickers bars. Also, it IS a little frustrating that sugar is added to so many foods unnecessarily. For example, look at spaghetti sauces next time you're in the grocery store. You'll have a hard time finding one without sugar added. If you make your own without sugar in it, or find a jar that doesn't have sugar added, you'll find that it tastes just fine without the sugar added. So... WHY do so many food producers add it? Tomatoes have enough sugar in them to make the sauce sweet, it's totally unnecessary. Again, I didn't watch the video (although I've seen parts of it in the past), I'm sure it takes the whole sugar thing to the extreme, but that doesn't discount the fact that sugar consumption is a bit out of control these days and it won't hurt the majority of people to make an effort to cut back on their sugar consumption.
one serving of Mario batali tomato basil has three grams of sugar...
On tomato plum serving at 62 grams has 1.6 grams of sugar...
It would seem that Mario does not have added sugar...Can't speak for rest as I do not buy their product...
Again, sugar does not make you fat. Eating more than you take in makes you fat...
As long as you are eating in a deficit, then you can purchase whatever tomato sauce you prefer....0 -
People are so rude! wow, why can't someone post something and not get all of the sarcasm and speculation. if you aren't interested just don't post it...even if it's alreay in the threads 1000 times you don't have to be rude.
OP, thanks for sharing, I have not seen this yet
It's not rude to disprove inaccurate information. We ARE interested and we DO post because we don't want bad information getting passed around to people who don't know the real science behind weight loss. And I wouldn't really call it speculation. It's science.
I find it hard to believe that all the complainers on these 5 pages of replies actually watched the 60-minute video. So it is rude to disprove information when you don't even know what the information is.
OP: Thanks for taking the time to share this. Some of us realize you had other things you could be doing, but in an effort to help those that might be helped by the video, you took the time to share the information. Keep it up! If there's a "Cliff's Notes" version of the video, I'd totally watch it.
so you did not watch the video either and you agree with OP? But you just said the rest of us did not watch the video...wait..what...ummm .....*head explodes*
oh the irony...0 -
people didnt get diabetic from eating berries and apples
It take 8 feet of sugar cane, imagine chewing on that , to get the equivalent amt. of sugar of one can of soda
ahhh yes the "fruit sugar is good " argument but "soda sugar" is bad argument...tried and tested as absolute garbage...
I don't think it's that some sugar is "good" while others are "bad". I think it's more of it's a lot harder to eat too much sugar from fruit than it is to eat too much sugar from oreos & snickers bars. Also, it IS a little frustrating that sugar is added to so many foods unnecessarily. For example, look at spaghetti sauces next time you're in the grocery store. You'll have a hard time finding one without sugar added. If you make your own without sugar in it, or find a jar that doesn't have sugar added, you'll find that it tastes just fine without the sugar added. So... WHY do so many food producers add it? Tomatoes have enough sugar in them to make the sauce sweet, it's totally unnecessary. Again, I didn't watch the video (although I've seen parts of it in the past), I'm sure it takes the whole sugar thing to the extreme, but that doesn't discount the fact that sugar consumption is a bit out of control these days and it won't hurt the majority of people to make an effort to cut back on their sugar consumption.
I'm not sure it's the responsibility of food manufacturers to not add sugar to stuff. That's like saying it's the grocery store's fault for putting the candy bars right next to the cash registers, when actually it would be my fault for letting myself get tempted.0 -
people didnt get diabetic from eating berries and apples
It take 8 feet of sugar cane, imagine chewing on that , to get the equivalent amt. of sugar of one can of soda
ahhh yes the "fruit sugar is good " argument but "soda sugar" is bad argument...tried and tested as absolute garbage...
I don't think it's that some sugar is "good" while others are "bad". I think it's more of it's a lot harder to eat too much sugar from fruit than it is to eat too much sugar from oreos & snickers bars. Also, it IS a little frustrating that sugar is added to so many foods unnecessarily. For example, look at spaghetti sauces next time you're in the grocery store. You'll have a hard time finding one without sugar added. If you make your own without sugar in it, or find a jar that doesn't have sugar added, you'll find that it tastes just fine without the sugar added. So... WHY do so many food producers add it? Tomatoes have enough sugar in them to make the sauce sweet, it's totally unnecessary. Again, I didn't watch the video (although I've seen parts of it in the past), I'm sure it takes the whole sugar thing to the extreme, but that doesn't discount the fact that sugar consumption is a bit out of control these days and it won't hurt the majority of people to make an effort to cut back on their sugar consumption.
I'm not sure it's the responsibility of food manufacturers to not add sugar to stuff. That's like saying it's the grocery store's fault for putting the candy bars right next to the cash registers.
I didn't question who's responsibility it is, I asked WHY do they put it in there in the first place? I, personally don't find it any tastier with or without it. I do think it makes it more difficult for those who limit their sugar intake (because of health issues or whatever reason) to do so. I'd much rather have a piece of chocolate than have extra sugar in my spaghetti sauce. I'd really rather have a spoonful of honey
0 -
I don't mess with the sugar numbers. It defaults to whatever MFP decides.. which is so low. I watch it just because I know what added sugar does to me. But i'm not worried about staying under the goal. I wouldn't know what to change it too anyway.
This is what I go by.. "1 teaspoon of sugar is 4 grams. Current recommendations are for no more than 6-8 teaspoons of added sugars each day, that is 16-32 grams per day of sweeteners."
And remind me, what is that?
I read that line, and almost posted a response to it. Then didn't. I'm glad someone did, though.
It makes me crave sugar
It makes me feel bad
It assists in my not losing (not necessarily gaining either though)
It interferes with my sleep patterns.
I actually get headaches and irritable from eating too much sugar. And then more-so when I stop again.
I didn't grow up eating a lot of sugary foods, so I don't really like them either.
I actually do believe it is not good for a person to consume a lot of added sugar, but do not care if you believe it or not.
Hence why I said *what it does to me* Not what it does to everyone.
mmmkay?0 -
But the location is their fault. I didn't choose to put it there.. the store owners did. Of course they aren't forcing me to put it in my basket.. but when I worked retail we had a saying. "You could put lint on the cart rail and people will buy it" So it's totally a marketing strategy and it works.That's like saying it's the grocery store's fault for putting the candy bars right next to the cash registers.
sugar sells. I cant' believe how many of my friends didn't like my spaghetti sauce. and then when I added some sugar to it and served them the same sauce they loved it. Sad really. We have to mask the taste of our foods. And that did start with the large companies trying to sell more. Give them sugar and they are hooked. Not this person, but lots of people. Hence why headaches occur when you stop consuming added sugars. Thankfully they only last a few days before your body adjusts.I'm not sure it's the responsibility of food manufacturers to not add sugar to stuff.0 -
I asked WHY do they put it in there in the first place? I, personally don't find it any tastier with or without it. I do think it makes it more difficult for those who limit their sugar intake (because of health issues or whatever reason) to do so. I'd much rather have a piece of chocolate than have extra sugar in my spaghetti sauce. I'd really rather have a spoonful of honey
This may come as a shock to you, but you are not everyone. The big pasta sauce manufacturers do a lot of focus groups and comparison testing. They add the sugar because people like it.0 -
But the location is their fault. I didn't choose to put it there.. the store owners did. Of course they aren't forcing me to put it in my basket.. but when I worked retail we had a saying. "You could but lint on the cart rail and people will buy it" So it's totally a marketing strategy and it works.That's like saying it's the grocery store's fault for putting the candy bars right next to the cash registers.
Agreed that it is totally a marketing strategy and it works. I guess I should have said it's like saying it's the grocery store's fault that I'm fat because they line the cash registers with candy.
Edited for bad grammar. Yuck.0 -
I'm still going to get fattie foods to lose weight
0 -
I asked WHY do they put it in there in the first place?
This is why:I cant' believe how many of my friends didn't like my spaghetti sauce. and then when I added some sugar to it and served them the same sauce they loved it.0 -
Sugar is delicious. Lack of willpower isn't a good excuse to demonize it.0
-
sugar sells. I cant' believe how many of my friends didn't like my spaghetti sauce. and then when I added some sugar to it and served them the same sauce they loved it. Sad really. We have to mask the taste of our foods. And that did start with the large companies trying to sell more. Give them sugar and they are hooked. Not this person, but lots of people. Hence why headaches occur when you stop consuming added sugars. Thankfully they only last a few days before your body adjusts.I'm not sure it's the responsibility of food manufacturers to not add sugar to stuff.
[/quote]
Many people don't like the acidity of cooked tomatoes. It actually is as simple as flavor for many people, so sauting sweet onions before adding the tomatoes may help. With canned goods i can't imagine the flavor would be the same so they add sugar. Would you keep making things that don't sell?_0 -
people didnt get diabetic from eating berries and apples
It take 8 feet of sugar cane, imagine chewing on that , to get the equivalent amt. of sugar of one can of soda
ahhh yes the "fruit sugar is good " argument but "soda sugar" is bad argument...tried and tested as absolute garbage...
I don't think it's that some sugar is "good" while others are "bad". I think it's more of it's a lot harder to eat too much sugar from fruit than it is to eat too much sugar from oreos & snickers bars. Also, it IS a little frustrating that sugar is added to so many foods unnecessarily. For example, look at spaghetti sauces next time you're in the grocery store. You'll have a hard time finding one without sugar added. If you make your own without sugar in it, or find a jar that doesn't have sugar added, you'll find that it tastes just fine without the sugar added. So... WHY do so many food producers add it? Tomatoes have enough sugar in them to make the sauce sweet, it's totally unnecessary. Again, I didn't watch the video (although I've seen parts of it in the past), I'm sure it takes the whole sugar thing to the extreme, but that doesn't discount the fact that sugar consumption is a bit out of control these days and it won't hurt the majority of people to make an effort to cut back on their sugar consumption.
I'm not sure it's the responsibility of food manufacturers to not add sugar to stuff. That's like saying it's the grocery store's fault for putting the candy bars right next to the cash registers.
I didn't question who's responsibility it is, I asked WHY do they put it in there in the first place? I, personally don't find it any tastier with or without it. I do think it makes it more difficult for those who limit their sugar intake (because of health issues or whatever reason) to do so. I'd much rather have a piece of chocolate than have extra sugar in my spaghetti sauce. I'd really rather have a spoonful of honey
would you buy spaghetti sauce that tasted like crap? Some people like to add sugar to their sauce some do not. I am northern Italian and we typically do not do it that way, but southern Italians do ..it is a matter of personal preference not some global conspiracy...
I personally prefer to make my own, but that is just me...0 -
I asked WHY do they put it in there in the first place? I, personally don't find it any tastier with or without it. I do think it makes it more difficult for those who limit their sugar intake (because of health issues or whatever reason) to do so. I'd much rather have a piece of chocolate than have extra sugar in my spaghetti sauce. I'd really rather have a spoonful of honey
This may come as a shock to you, but you are not everyone. The big pasta sauce manufacturers do a lot of focus groups and comparison testing. They add the sugar because people like it.
This is not a shock to me. I am fully aware that everyone is different and preferences are vast. I guess I just have sympathy for those who's health depends on keeping their sugar consumption low because it's added to nearly everything. Pickles, dressings, sauces...etc. For those who need to keep their sugar intake to a minimum, I'm sure they'd rather not waste it on those things. I'm willing to bet they'd rather enjoy some ice cream or something that's meant to be sugary in the first place.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions