Sugar Sugar Sugar Sugar!
Replies
-
My question is what is so wrong with someone wanting to decrease their sugar consumption? There doesn't have to be a medical or scientific reason for it. It could be simply because they feel better when they don't consume as much sugar, added or otherwise. I limit my sugar consumption because I know that once I start eating something sweet it becomes a habit for me. I try my best to not consume sugar -- I don't drink sweet tea, I don't put sugar in my coffee, I limit my intake of candy and sweets, if I get a mixed drink at a bar I ask for it to be not sweet -- and I also try to avoid and/or limit added sugars in my foods. I read labels, read ingredients to see where the sugar content is and what it is, read the nutrition data and see how many grams of sugar are in a serving of whatever it is I am looking to buy.
I do it because eating too much sugar makes me feel like crap. I avoid aspartame because it's just nasty and tastes fake as does sucrolose and all those other "diet" sugars. I don't need to spout science or search the internet for a billion reasons why sugar is or isn't bad for me I choose to limit my consumption of it for my own reasons. I know how I feel when I have too much and I know how I feel when I limit and/or omit it and I prefer how I feel when I limit.
I didn't see anyone say there was anything wrong with it.0 -
My question is what is so wrong with someone wanting to decrease their sugar consumption? There doesn't have to be a medical or scientific reason for it. It could be simply because they feel better when they don't consume as much sugar, added or otherwise. I limit my sugar consumption because I know that once I start eating something sweet it becomes a habit for me. I try my best to not consume sugar -- I don't drink sweet tea, I don't put sugar in my coffee, I limit my intake of candy and sweets, if I get a mixed drink at a bar I ask for it to be not sweet -- and I also try to avoid and/or limit added sugars in my foods. I read labels, read ingredients to see where the sugar content is and what it is, read the nutrition data and see how many grams of sugar are in a serving of whatever it is I am looking to buy.
I do it because eating too much sugar makes me feel like crap. I avoid aspartame because it's just nasty and tastes fake as does sucrolose and all those other "diet" sugars. I don't need to spout science or search the internet for a billion reasons why sugar is or isn't bad for me I choose to limit my consumption of it for my own reasons. I know how I feel when I have too much and I know how I feel when I limit and/or omit it and I prefer how I feel when I limit.
I didn't see anyone say there was anything wrong with it.
No?Why do you need sources? It's sugar. Everyone knows that sugar is da debil. No cite needed.FTFY
sugar is not the enemy.
remember when fat used to be the enemy?
wheat was the enemy once too.
oh and CARBS!!!! those evil evil carbs!!
everything in moderation is fine. (except meth...meth is pretty bad in any amount. an bath salts...that **** will make you eat your friends!)
unless you have a medical reason to avoid sugar you really dont have to.
it makes life a little........sweeter.
Any time there is a post about someone wanting to decrease their sugar intake or try to eliminate added sugars, fake sugars etc. a snarky debate ensues.0 -
My question is what is so wrong with someone wanting to decrease their sugar consumption? There doesn't have to be a medical or scientific reason for it. It could be simply because they feel better when they don't consume as much sugar, added or otherwise. I limit my sugar consumption because I know that once I start eating something sweet it becomes a habit for me. I try my best to not consume sugar -- I don't drink sweet tea, I don't put sugar in my coffee, I limit my intake of candy and sweets, if I get a mixed drink at a bar I ask for it to be not sweet -- and I also try to avoid and/or limit added sugars in my foods. I read labels, read ingredients to see where the sugar content is and what it is, read the nutrition data and see how many grams of sugar are in a serving of whatever it is I am looking to buy.
I do it because eating too much sugar makes me feel like crap. I avoid aspartame because it's just nasty and tastes fake as does sucrolose and all those other "diet" sugars. I don't need to spout science or search the internet for a billion reasons why sugar is or isn't bad for me I choose to limit my consumption of it for my own reasons. I know how I feel when I have too much and I know how I feel when I limit and/or omit it and I prefer how I feel when I limit.
There's nothing wrong with wanting to reduce your sugar intake. The only wrong thing is when articles state that sugar is the number one reason for obesity.0 -
Lustig probably rationalizes this difference as fructose from fruit is magical...er, I mean, is somehow *different* than fructose from all other sources. I know he claims they are different, probably so studies like this one don't confound his conclusion.
He also claims they are indistinguishable. He claims that they are identical, and also claims that they're fundamentally different.
Not in a zen way or a contextually meaningful way, but in a self-contradicting way.
This is why I really would prefer that when people poop out links to studies in a thread, that they be prepared to discuss them, rather than just leave them in a burning paper bag on my doorstep.
Not saying, just saying.0 -
My question is what is so wrong with someone wanting to decrease their sugar consumption? There doesn't have to be a medical or scientific reason for it. It could be simply because they feel better when they don't consume as much sugar, added or otherwise. I limit my sugar consumption because I know that once I start eating something sweet it becomes a habit for me. I try my best to not consume sugar -- I don't drink sweet tea, I don't put sugar in my coffee, I limit my intake of candy and sweets, if I get a mixed drink at a bar I ask for it to be not sweet -- and I also try to avoid and/or limit added sugars in my foods. I read labels, read ingredients to see where the sugar content is and what it is, read the nutrition data and see how many grams of sugar are in a serving of whatever it is I am looking to buy.
I do it because eating too much sugar makes me feel like crap. I avoid aspartame because it's just nasty and tastes fake as does sucrolose and all those other "diet" sugars. I don't need to spout science or search the internet for a billion reasons why sugar is or isn't bad for me I choose to limit my consumption of it for my own reasons. I know how I feel when I have too much and I know how I feel when I limit and/or omit it and I prefer how I feel when I limit.
I didn't see anyone say there was anything wrong with it.
No?Why do you need sources? It's sugar. Everyone knows that sugar is da debil. No cite needed.FTFY
sugar is not the enemy.
remember when fat used to be the enemy?
wheat was the enemy once too.
oh and CARBS!!!! those evil evil carbs!!
everything in moderation is fine. (except meth...meth is pretty bad in any amount. an bath salts...that **** will make you eat your friends!)
unless you have a medical reason to avoid sugar you really dont have to.
it makes life a little........sweeter.
Any time there is a post about someone wanting to decrease their sugar intake or try to eliminate added sugars, fake sugars etc. a snarky debate ensues.
The snarky debate ensues when false claims are made about sugar.0 -
Ok, completely random side note, but I just read about the Taino indians this morning. Everyone assumes that the Spanish killed them all off, but many Jamaican sprinters have recently been genetically tested by people interested in why so many Jamaican sprinters are at the top of their class. Many of these sprinters have mitochondrial DNA that places them all from the same region of Jamaica. Decedents of the Marooners. These were some of the strongest slaves that escaped from the British while the British were trying to wrestle the island from the Spanish. (Strongest because the area they chose to inhabit was completely dependable because it was surrounded by sheer cliffs, but required a lot strength to gain access, plus they were able to fight off the British while vastly out numbered.)'By the 18th century the marriage of sugar and slavery was complete. Every few years a new island—Puerto Rico, Trinidad—was colonized, cleared, and planted. When the natives died, the planters replaced them with African slaves. ' excerpt from the National Geographic article...interesting choice of words.
The natives didn't die they were killed and 'planters' did bring African slaves to those islands and countries. Ever hear of the Taino Indians? Most people haven't, they're no longer around, when they didn't work the Spanish murdered them in masse. But the part on sugar...quite accurate(yes, sarcasm).
Anyways, they pinpointed that about 10% of their DNA was from the Taino Indians, so while it was thought that they were completely wiped out by the Spanish, it is far more likely that some escaped to the more remote parts of the island and then began living with the Marooners.0 -
Nice, harveler.0
-
0 -
Nice, harveler.
Huh? Did I miss something?
ETA: Oh, is a post now missing?
ETAM: LOL.0 -
Nice, harveler.
Huh? Did I miss something?
ETA: Oh, is a post now missing?
lmao...did the charming young man just call the people who were arguing against his context lacking, cherry picked, and 'not on point' studies fat?
Good debating skills there!0 -
Nice, harveler.
Huh? Did I miss something?
ETA: Oh, is a post now missing?
ETAM: LOL.
I hate when that happens0 -
Nice, harveler.
Huh? Did I miss something?
ETA: Oh, is a post now missing?
lmao...did the charming young man just call the people who were arguing against his context lacking, cherry picked, and 'not on point' studies fat?
Good debating skills there!
You forgot to add that everyone was ignoring the overwhelming evidence??0 -
Nice, harveler.
Huh? Did I miss something?
ETA: Oh, is a post now missing?
lmao...did the charming young man just call the people who were arguing against his context lacking, cherry picked, and 'not on point' studies fat?
Good debating skills there!
You forgot to add that everyone was ignoring the overwhelming evidence??
Well I spent 20 minutes reviewing the literature that he linked, and found that it was time wasted. I summarized the reasons why the papers were irrelevant.0 -
Nice, harveler.
Huh? Did I miss something?
ETA: Oh, is a post now missing?
lmao...did the charming young man just call the people who were arguing against his context lacking, cherry picked, and 'not on point' studies fat?
Good debating skills there!
You forgot to add that everyone was ignoring the overwhelming evidence??
What overwhelming evidence?0 -
Nice, harveler.
Huh? Did I miss something?
ETA: Oh, is a post now missing?
lmao...did the charming young man just call the people who were arguing against his context lacking, cherry picked, and 'not on point' studies fat?
Good debating skills there!
You forgot to add that everyone was ignoring the overwhelming evidence??
Well I spent 20 minutes reviewing the literature that he linked, and found that it was time wasted. I summarized the reasons why the papers were irrelevant. I guess the next substantive reply that harveler had in his arsenal of evidence was to call everyone a fat m-f-er.
Unfortunately this "sugar is bad" "hidden sugar" is a steamroller that will continue to plough on and on in the same way that the one demonising fats did
That one lead to the belief that everything healthy had to be low fat, as an example I have two cans of minestrone soup in the cupboard, both by the same manufacturer. One is in the favourites range and one in the healthy range. When you read the label the healthy has marginally lower fat and saturated fat with higher sugar, salt and overall calories (all the differences are marginal) Oh and the pasta is wholewheat as well.
So in a couple of years does this healthy range suddenly have higher fats and low sugar?0 -
Nice, harveler.
Huh? Did I miss something?
ETA: Oh, is a post now missing?
lmao...did the charming young man just call the people who were arguing against his context lacking, cherry picked, and 'not on point' studies fat?
Good debating skills there!
You forgot to add that everyone was ignoring the overwhelming evidence??
What overwhelming evidence?
Exactly0 -
The "sugar is bad" people are just a copy of the "fat is bad" people from 2 decades ago.
The smart educated people then knew fat wasn't some demon nutrient. ThwThw smart educated people today know sugar isn't a demon nutrient.0 -
The tide is changing these days in regards to sugar. The WHO is even considering cutting their recommended limit for added sugar in half from 10% to 5% -- surely there's some research available for them to consider it? I'll be interested to see just how much the sugar industry has influenced the perception/belief that sugar is harmless... and perhaps the research? Because sugar in the quantities we've been eating it is certainly harmful; I have no doubt about that.
Sugar industry's secret documents echo tobacco tactics
http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/sugar-industry-s-secret-documents-echo-tobacco-tactics-1.13692310 -
Well as long as you have no doubt it must be true!0
-
I appreciate your faith in me. :flowerforyou:Well as long as you have no doubt it must be true!0 -
The tide is changing these days in regards to sugar. The WHO is even considering cutting their recommended limit for added sugar in half from 10% to 5% -- surely there's some research available for them to consider it? I'll be interested to see just how much the sugar industry has influenced the perception/belief that sugar is harmless... and perhaps the research? Because sugar in the quantities we've been eating it is certainly harmful; I have no doubt about that.
Sugar industry's secret documents echo tobacco tactics
http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/sugar-industry-s-secret-documents-echo-tobacco-tactics-1.1369231
Public health organizations are concerned with altering the intake of the population as a whole. If the WHO can influence companies and governments to include less sugar in fold, calorie intake might go down slightly and help fight obesity.
However, in the context of an individual controlling his calorie intake and accounting for the sugar calories it's completely irrelevant.0 -
So if sugar consumption goes down people will spontaneously eat less without counting calories? Cool.The tide is changing these days in regards to sugar. The WHO is even considering cutting their recommended limit for added sugar in half from 10% to 5% -- surely there's some research available for them to consider it? I'll be interested to see just how much the sugar industry has influenced the perception/belief that sugar is harmless... and perhaps the research? Because sugar in the quantities we've been eating it is certainly harmful; I have no doubt about that.
Sugar industry's secret documents echo tobacco tactics
http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/sugar-industry-s-secret-documents-echo-tobacco-tactics-1.1369231
Public health organizations are concerned with altering the intake of the population as a whole. If the WHO can influence companies and governments to include less sugar in fold, calorie intake might go down slightly and help fight obesity.
However, in the context of an individual controlling his calorie intake and accounting for the sugar calories it's completely irrelevant.0 -
I appreciate your faith in me. :flowerforyou:Well as long as you have no doubt it must be true!
As you should.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have an apple tart with caramel ice cream calling my name.0 -
Umm... You DO know that just because something is published/printed doesn't scientifically validate it, right? And given the process of natural selection, today's wheat would differ from that of the previous century to some extent, even w/o mankind's deliberate tinkering. As for the sugar quote, you kinda proved the opposition's argument. An EXCESS of sugar is generally accepted to have harmful consequences - that one word makes all the difference. FWIW, I'll opine that the single largest food-related issue, beyond our propensity as a species for gluttony, is dependance on highly processed foods. The processing leads to excess sugar, salt, etc. It's ther curse of the modern Western lifestyle.....0
-
Ok, completely random side note, but I just read about the Taino indians this morning. Everyone assumes that the Spanish killed them all off, but many Jamaican sprinters have recently been genetically tested by people interested in why so many Jamaican sprinters are at the top of their class. Many of these sprinters have mitochondrial DNA that places them all from the same region of Jamaica. Decedents of the Marooners. These were some of the strongest slaves that escaped from the British while the British were trying to wrestle the island from the Spanish. (Strongest because the area they chose to inhabit was completely dependable because it was surrounded by sheer cliffs, but required a lot strength to gain access, plus they were able to fight off the British while vastly out numbered.)'By the 18th century the marriage of sugar and slavery was complete. Every few years a new island—Puerto Rico, Trinidad—was colonized, cleared, and planted. When the natives died, the planters replaced them with African slaves. ' excerpt from the National Geographic article...interesting choice of words.
The natives didn't die they were killed and 'planters' did bring African slaves to those islands and countries. Ever hear of the Taino Indians? Most people haven't, they're no longer around, when they didn't work the Spanish murdered them in masse. But the part on sugar...quite accurate(yes, sarcasm).
Anyways, they pinpointed that about 10% of their DNA was from the Taino Indians, so while it was thought that they were completely wiped out by the Spanish, it is far more likely that some escaped to the more remote parts of the island and then began living with the Marooners.
This is my take away from the sugar post. Thank you for posting! Very informative!
0 -
Umm... You DO know that just because something is published/printed doesn't scientifically validate it, right? And given the process of natural selection, today's wheat would differ from that of the previous century to some extent, even w/o mankind's deliberate tinkering. As for the sugar quote, you kinda proved the opposition's argument. An EXCESS of sugar is generally accepted to have harmful consequences - that one word makes all the difference. FWIW, I'll opine that the single largest food-related issue, beyond our propensity as a species for gluttony, is dependance on highly processed foods. The processing leads to excess sugar, salt, etc. It's ther curse of the modern Western lifestyle.....
No the curse regardless of society, is the inability to not over consume Any Food regardless to whether it has sugar, salt, fat, etc... If you eat above you caloric intake you will gain weight..... Sugar is just today's whipping boy.......0 -
Umm... You DO know that just because something is published/printed doesn't scientifically validate it, right? And given the process of natural selection, today's wheat would differ from that of the previous century to some extent, even w/o mankind's deliberate tinkering. As for the sugar quote, you kinda proved the opposition's argument. An EXCESS of sugar is generally accepted to have harmful consequences - that one word makes all the difference. FWIW, I'll opine that the single largest food-related issue, beyond our propensity as a species for gluttony, is dependance on highly processed foods. The processing leads to excess sugar, salt, etc. It's ther curse of the modern Western lifestyle.....
Fortunately, the "curse" can be completely negated by not consuming these foods...all foods...in excess. Tracking foods on a site like this is one way to control that.
ETA: Yeah, what Ed said.0 -
Excess sugar DOES cause metabolic syndromes and problems not seen in excess consumption of other macronutrients. Do a little reading on leptin, ghrelin, and insulin. Sugar has a very specific effect on insulin which changes the body's ability and capacity to store fat, use fat, etc. Putting your hands over your ears as if you are personally offended by this little bit of biology is ridiculous...
No one's saying you're a bad person for eating ice cream. There is just more and more science able to back up the fact that sugar is, in fact, a catalyst for weight gain in both its psychological addictiveness and effects on the hormone systems of the human body.
BTW, when "excess sugar" is mentioned, they don't mean in excess of someone's caloric goals... DUH. It means in excess of what is a normal amount of sugar to consume incidentally, in milk and veggies and fruit etc - too much sugar *within* a caloric allowance.0 -
Excess sugar DOES cause metabolic syndromes and problems not seen in excess consumption of other macronutrients. Do a little reading on leptin, ghrelin, and insulin. Sugar has a very specific effect on insulin which changes the body's ability and capacity to store fat, use fat, etc. Putting your hands over your ears as if you are personally offended by this little bit of biology is ridiculous...
No one's saying you're a bad person for eating ice cream. There is just more and more science able to back up the fact that sugar is, in fact, a catalyst for weight gain in both its psychological addictiveness and effects on the hormone systems of the human body.
BTW, when "excess sugar" is mentioned, they don't mean in excess of someone's caloric goals... DUH. It means in excess of what is a normal amount of sugar to consume incidentally, in milk and veggies and fruit etc - too much sugar *within* a caloric allowance.
Re insulin...have a read of this.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/817143-insulin-low-carbs-gary-taubes-and-james-krieger0 -
Excess sugar DOES cause metabolic syndromes and problems not seen in excess consumption of other macronutrients. Do a little reading on leptin, ghrelin, and insulin. Sugar has a very specific effect on insulin which changes the body's ability and capacity to store fat, use fat, etc. Putting your hands over your ears as if you are personally offended by this little bit of biology is ridiculous...
No one's saying you're a bad person for eating ice cream. There is just more and more science able to back up the fact that sugar is, in fact, a catalyst for weight gain in both its psychological addictiveness and effects on the hormone systems of the human body.
BTW, when "excess sugar" is mentioned, they don't mean in excess of someone's caloric goals... DUH. It means in excess of what is a normal amount of sugar to consume incidentally, in milk and veggies and fruit etc - too much sugar *within* a caloric allowance.
I kno, rite? I hear it's the new tobacco.
Light the torches, grab the pitchforks!0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K 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