HOW MUCH SUGAR IS TOO MUCH?
Replies
-
Freaks come out of the woodwork when they hear the word sugar :huh:
Joanne, you definitely have balls starting a thread about sugar
I agree with you Joanne, added sugar is toxic. If someone has scientific proof to back up that it's not, I would honestly love to see it. Thank you
Have you ever seen or heard of an autopsy report that sited cause of death as 'acute sugar toxicity'?
Yeah, I didn't think so.
Semantics again. I've never seen an autopsy that said "too much food" either. Maybe that's because food isn't "toxic". But getting fat and dying of a heart attack is. Once you're dead, the "but it wasn't technically 'toxic'" argument will lose some of it's appeal. Point is, arguing over semantics is about winning a fight on the internet. Not much practical, actionable information gained that way.
So not toxic?
Good to know.
Semantics . . .
Sure, if that's how you want to look at it.
It's kind of like saying "Cigarettes will kill you". Technically, cigarettes have never killed anyone. It's lung cancer that kills people. But using an argument like that to say "cigarettes don't kill people" is misleading. Oh, it's true, but it intentionally creates the impression that smoking is safe. That kind of argument is often followed by an anecdotal argument like "a woman in the Ukraine lived to 108 and smoked a pack a day". And it's probably true. But most people look at the available evidence and decide that smoking isn't a great idea and likely has a very strong link to lung cancer. So why make a case that, while technically accurate, goes out of it's way to create a misleading impression?
This sugar nonsense is kind of the same thing. Someone says something like "it causes all kinds of diseases". Meh. That's probably a misinformed statement. Best to just say so. When you start down the "Sugar is fine. Eat all you want." road, you're kind of going off the other way. As soon as you say "Eat all you want" you have to qualify it with IIFYM. So why go there in the first place? Just say what you mean. Bad info is bad info either way.
Not to mention, it's always a dubious way to argue. "Toxic means poisonous". Yup, it does. But it also means "deadly: causing serious harm or death." Could you argue that something like cigarettes that can lead to a result that ultimately results in death is "toxic"? Sure you could. Probably pushing the technical definition, but in colloquial use people say things like that all the time. At what point does a phrase like that stop being a literal statement and become a metaphor? And does it matter when trying to explain a very broad point? The issue is, should I stop smoking or not? How does that tangential logic contribute to the decision?
A lot of people consume a lot of sugar and the AHA is suggesting that it is a contributing factor to over-eating and obesity. Anyone here would suggest that you should try to hit your macros, and there's no question that some people drink enough soda to make that difficult to do that at a calorie deficit, or even at a maintenance level. Would anyone here advise someone to add 10 cans of soda to their diet? The AHA is not saying you can't consume added sugar. They're just saying work it into an otherwise healthy diet in moderation. Sounds exactly like IIFYM.
A bit rambling there, and a great non sequitur or two, but no it is no exactly like IIFYM. IIFYM is based on macros and wouldn't have us counting sugar separate from carbs. Sorry. Try again.0 -
Freaks come out of the woodwork when they hear the word sugar :huh:
Joanne, you definitely have balls starting a thread about sugar
I agree with you Joanne, added sugar is toxic. If someone has scientific proof to back up that it's not, I would honestly love to see it. Thank you
Have you ever seen or heard of an autopsy report that sited cause of death as 'acute sugar toxicity'?
Yeah, I didn't think so.
Semantics again. I've never seen an autopsy that said "too much food" either. Maybe that's because food isn't "toxic". But getting fat and dying of a heart attack is. Once you're dead, the "but it wasn't technically 'toxic'" argument will lose some of it's appeal. Point is, arguing over semantics is about winning a fight on the internet. Not much practical, actionable information gained that way.
So not toxic?
Good to know.
Semantics . . .
Sure, if that's how you want to look at it.
It's kind of like saying "Cigarettes will kill you". Technically, cigarettes have never killed anyone. It's lung cancer that kills people. But using an argument like that to say "cigarettes don't kill people" is misleading. Oh, it's true, but it intentionally creates the impression that smoking is safe. That kind of argument is often followed by an anecdotal argument like "a woman in the Ukraine lived to 108 and smoked a pack a day". And it's probably true. But most people look at the available evidence and decide that smoking isn't a great idea and likely has a very strong link to lung cancer. So why make a case that, while technically accurate, goes out of it's way to create a misleading impression?
This sugar nonsense is kind of the same thing. Someone says something like "it causes all kinds of diseases". Meh. That's probably a misinformed statement. Best to just say so. When you start down the "Sugar is fine. Eat all you want." road, you're kind of going off the other way. As soon as you say "Eat all you want" you have to qualify it with IIFYM. So why go there in the first place? Just say what you mean. Bad info is bad info either way.
Not to mention, it's always a dubious way to argue. "Toxic means poisonous". Yup, it does. But it also means "deadly: causing serious harm or death." Could you argue that something like cigarettes that can lead to a result that ultimately results in death is "toxic"? Sure you could. Probably pushing the technical definition, but in colloquial use people say things like that all the time. At what point does a phrase like that stop being a literal statement and become a metaphor? And does it matter when trying to explain a very broad point? The issue is, should I stop smoking or not? How does that tangential logic contribute to the decision?
A lot of people consume a lot of sugar and the AHA is suggesting that it is a contributing factor to over-eating and obesity. Anyone here would suggest that you should try to hit your macros, and there's no question that some people drink enough soda to make that difficult to do that at a calorie deficit, or even at a maintenance level. Would anyone here advise someone to add 10 cans of soda to their diet? The AHA is not saying you can't consume added sugar. They're just saying work it into an otherwise healthy diet in moderation. Sounds exactly like IIFYM.
A bit rambling there, and a great non sequitur or two, but no it is no exactly like IIFYM. IIFYM is based on macros and wouldn't have us counting sugar separate from carbs. Sorry. Try again.
I think this is a matter of context.
While I don't track sugar, just looking at the math of it if I stick to a reasonable portion of discretionary calories as a percentage of total calories, and I hit my macros with the ~80% of my diet that is non discretionary and nutrient dense, I would believe that two things are probably true:
1) By default my added sugars are reasonably close to AHA recommendations.
2) The concerns which attempt to justify those limits (nutrient sufficiency of the diet, excess energy) are irrelevant.
Claims of sugar being toxic are silly when they don't address the idea of chronic energy excess--> obesity.
As flexible dieters in an environment where total energy intake is presumably controlled, that aspect of the discussion tends to get omitted.0 -
[/quote]focusing on the sloth
Sure.... blame the sloth.0 -
Freaks come out of the woodwork when they hear the word sugar :huh:
Joanne, you definitely have balls starting a thread about sugar
I agree with you Joanne, added sugar is toxic. If someone has scientific proof to back up that it's not, I would honestly love to see it. Thank you
Have you ever seen or heard of an autopsy report that sited cause of death as 'acute sugar toxicity'?
Yeah, I didn't think so.
Semantics again. I've never seen an autopsy that said "too much food" either. Maybe that's because food isn't "toxic". But getting fat and dying of a heart attack is. Once you're dead, the "but it wasn't technically 'toxic'" argument will lose some of it's appeal. Point is, arguing over semantics is about winning a fight on the internet. Not much practical, actionable information gained that way.
So not toxic?
Good to know.
Semantics . . .
Sure, if that's how you want to look at it.
It's kind of like saying "Cigarettes will kill you". Technically, cigarettes have never killed anyone. It's lung cancer that kills people. But using an argument like that to say "cigarettes don't kill people" is misleading. Oh, it's true, but it intentionally creates the impression that smoking is safe. That kind of argument is often followed by an anecdotal argument like "a woman in the Ukraine lived to 108 and smoked a pack a day". And it's probably true. But most people look at the available evidence and decide that smoking isn't a great idea and likely has a very strong link to lung cancer. So why make a case that, while technically accurate, goes out of it's way to create a misleading impression?
This sugar nonsense is kind of the same thing. Someone says something like "it causes all kinds of diseases". Meh. That's probably a misinformed statement. Best to just say so. When you start down the "Sugar is fine. Eat all you want." road, you're kind of going off the other way. As soon as you say "Eat all you want" you have to qualify it with IIFYM. So why go there in the first place? Just say what you mean. Bad info is bad info either way.
Not to mention, it's always a dubious way to argue. "Toxic means poisonous". Yup, it does. But it also means "deadly: causing serious harm or death." Could you argue that something like cigarettes that can lead to a result that ultimately results in death is "toxic"? Sure you could. Probably pushing the technical definition, but in colloquial use people say things like that all the time. At what point does a phrase like that stop being a literal statement and become a metaphor? And does it matter when trying to explain a very broad point? The issue is, should I stop smoking or not? How does that tangential logic contribute to the decision?
A lot of people consume a lot of sugar and the AHA is suggesting that it is a contributing factor to over-eating and obesity. Anyone here would suggest that you should try to hit your macros, and there's no question that some people drink enough soda to make that difficult to do that at a calorie deficit, or even at a maintenance level. Would anyone here advise someone to add 10 cans of soda to their diet? The AHA is not saying you can't consume added sugar. They're just saying work it into an otherwise healthy diet in moderation. Sounds exactly like IIFYM.
A bit rambling there, and a great non sequitur or two, but no it is no exactly like IIFYM. IIFYM is based on macros and wouldn't have us counting sugar separate from carbs. Sorry. Try again.
You can't fit your macros if you eat/drink too many sugary foods with no nutritional value.
Short version work better for you?
(edit) Did you even read what I wrote? I didn't say anything about tracking sugar - separate from carbs or otherwise. What are you even on about again?0 -
Freaks come out of the woodwork when they hear the word sugar :huh:
Joanne, you definitely have balls starting a thread about sugar
I agree with you Joanne, added sugar is toxic. If someone has scientific proof to back up that it's not, I would honestly love to see it. Thank you
Have you ever seen or heard of an autopsy report that sited cause of death as 'acute sugar toxicity'?
Yeah, I didn't think so.
Semantics again. I've never seen an autopsy that said "too much food" either. Maybe that's because food isn't "toxic". But getting fat and dying of a heart attack is. Once you're dead, the "but it wasn't technically 'toxic'" argument will lose some of it's appeal. Point is, arguing over semantics is about winning a fight on the internet. Not much practical, actionable information gained that way.
So not toxic?
Good to know.
Semantics . . .
Sure, if that's how you want to look at it.
It's kind of like saying "Cigarettes will kill you". Technically, cigarettes have never killed anyone. It's lung cancer that kills people. But using an argument like that to say "cigarettes don't kill people" is misleading. Oh, it's true, but it intentionally creates the impression that smoking is safe. That kind of argument is often followed by an anecdotal argument like "a woman in the Ukraine lived to 108 and smoked a pack a day". And it's probably true. But most people look at the available evidence and decide that smoking isn't a great idea and likely has a very strong link to lung cancer. So why make a case that, while technically accurate, goes out of it's way to create a misleading impression?
This sugar nonsense is kind of the same thing. Someone says something like "it causes all kinds of diseases". Meh. That's probably a misinformed statement. Best to just say so. When you start down the "Sugar is fine. Eat all you want." road, you're kind of going off the other way. As soon as you say "Eat all you want" you have to qualify it with IIFYM. So why go there in the first place? Just say what you mean. Bad info is bad info either way.
Not to mention, it's always a dubious way to argue. "Toxic means poisonous". Yup, it does. But it also means "deadly: causing serious harm or death." Could you argue that something like cigarettes that can lead to a result that ultimately results in death is "toxic"? Sure you could. Probably pushing the technical definition, but in colloquial use people say things like that all the time. At what point does a phrase like that stop being a literal statement and become a metaphor? And does it matter when trying to explain a very broad point? The issue is, should I stop smoking or not? How does that tangential logic contribute to the decision?
A lot of people consume a lot of sugar and the AHA is suggesting that it is a contributing factor to over-eating and obesity. Anyone here would suggest that you should try to hit your macros, and there's no question that some people drink enough soda to make that difficult to do that at a calorie deficit, or even at a maintenance level. Would anyone here advise someone to add 10 cans of soda to their diet? The AHA is not saying you can't consume added sugar. They're just saying work it into an otherwise healthy diet in moderation. Sounds exactly like IIFYM.
A bit rambling there, and a great non sequitur or two, but no it is no exactly like IIFYM. IIFYM is based on macros and wouldn't have us counting sugar separate from carbs. Sorry. Try again.
You can't fit your macros if you eat/drink too many sugary foods with no nutritional value.
Short version work better for you?
It's an improvement, but you can't hit your macros if you eat too much broccoli either.0 -
It's an improvement, but you can't hit your macros if you eat too much broccoli either.
Great non sequitur.0 -
That's a lot of broccoli.Freaks come out of the woodwork when they hear the word sugar :huh:
Joanne, you definitely have balls starting a thread about sugar
I agree with you Joanne, added sugar is toxic. If someone has scientific proof to back up that it's not, I would honestly love to see it. Thank you
Have you ever seen or heard of an autopsy report that sited cause of death as 'acute sugar toxicity'?
Yeah, I didn't think so.
Semantics again. I've never seen an autopsy that said "too much food" either. Maybe that's because food isn't "toxic". But getting fat and dying of a heart attack is. Once you're dead, the "but it wasn't technically 'toxic'" argument will lose some of it's appeal. Point is, arguing over semantics is about winning a fight on the internet. Not much practical, actionable information gained that way.
So not toxic?
Good to know.
Semantics . . .
Sure, if that's how you want to look at it.
It's kind of like saying "Cigarettes will kill you". Technically, cigarettes have never killed anyone. It's lung cancer that kills people. But using an argument like that to say "cigarettes don't kill people" is misleading. Oh, it's true, but it intentionally creates the impression that smoking is safe. That kind of argument is often followed by an anecdotal argument like "a woman in the Ukraine lived to 108 and smoked a pack a day". And it's probably true. But most people look at the available evidence and decide that smoking isn't a great idea and likely has a very strong link to lung cancer. So why make a case that, while technically accurate, goes out of it's way to create a misleading impression?
This sugar nonsense is kind of the same thing. Someone says something like "it causes all kinds of diseases". Meh. That's probably a misinformed statement. Best to just say so. When you start down the "Sugar is fine. Eat all you want." road, you're kind of going off the other way. As soon as you say "Eat all you want" you have to qualify it with IIFYM. So why go there in the first place? Just say what you mean. Bad info is bad info either way.
Not to mention, it's always a dubious way to argue. "Toxic means poisonous". Yup, it does. But it also means "deadly: causing serious harm or death." Could you argue that something like cigarettes that can lead to a result that ultimately results in death is "toxic"? Sure you could. Probably pushing the technical definition, but in colloquial use people say things like that all the time. At what point does a phrase like that stop being a literal statement and become a metaphor? And does it matter when trying to explain a very broad point? The issue is, should I stop smoking or not? How does that tangential logic contribute to the decision?
A lot of people consume a lot of sugar and the AHA is suggesting that it is a contributing factor to over-eating and obesity. Anyone here would suggest that you should try to hit your macros, and there's no question that some people drink enough soda to make that difficult to do that at a calorie deficit, or even at a maintenance level. Would anyone here advise someone to add 10 cans of soda to their diet? The AHA is not saying you can't consume added sugar. They're just saying work it into an otherwise healthy diet in moderation. Sounds exactly like IIFYM.
A bit rambling there, and a great non sequitur or two, but no it is no exactly like IIFYM. IIFYM is based on macros and wouldn't have us counting sugar separate from carbs. Sorry. Try again.
You can't fit your macros if you eat/drink too many sugary foods with no nutritional value.
Short version work better for you?
It's an improvement, but you can't hit your macros if you eat too much broccoli either.0 -
That's a lot of broccoli.It's an improvement, but you can't hit your macros if you eat too much broccoli either.
It's a lot of something else too. lol0 -
It's an improvement, but you can't hit your macros if you eat too much broccoli either.
Great non sequitur.
No, it's not. You seem to be making an argument that counting added sugars in addition to carbs in general is important. I'm not seeing it add much to the equation.0 -
That's a lot of broccoli.It's an improvement, but you can't hit your macros if you eat too much broccoli either.
It's a lot of something else too. lol
Replace it with potatoes, or sweat potatoes, corn, etc. We already know you can't overdo one food and hit your macros. So what?0 -
It was just an extreme example that made no sense, in my mind anyway. If you would have sweet potato I wouldn't have posted. Extremes never make much sense, at least I haven't seen many that do. I do agree with your basic premise btw..
That's a lot of broccoli.It's an improvement, but you can't hit your macros if you eat too much broccoli either.
It's a lot of something else too. lol
Replace it with potatoes, or sweat potatoes, corn, etc. We already know you can't overdo one food and hit your macros. So what?0 -
Joanne, you definitely have balls starting a thread about sugar
Not really - it's all she does. It's like she is a robot programmed to spam misinformation as often as possible.
True! I had to block her because she kept harassing me.0 -
It's an improvement, but you can't hit your macros if you eat too much broccoli either.
Great non sequitur.
No, it's not. You seem to be making an argument that counting added sugars in addition to carbs in general is important. I'm not seeing it add much to the equation.
I didn't say that. I didn't imply that.
Go to your food log. Add 10 cans of Coke. Now try to hit your macros. It may be possible, I'm not sure. It would certainly be hard to do in a sustainable way and would take a lot of effort for someone actively tracking their intake. For someone who isn't it would almost certainly never happen. But there are people who drink that much Coke. On a more reasonable scale, there are people who don't go that far, but have the same issue in a smaller way, leading to weight gain over a longer period of time.
Sugary foods with little or no nutritional value add a lot of calories but do very little work toward hitting your macros. If you get too many of your calories that way, there simply aren't enough left to hit your macros without a calorie surplus. Different words, but exactly what the AHA article I linked to on the subject said. And, again, because going from one extreme to the other is so popular here, I'll point out that they didn't suggest eliminating added sugar from your diet. In fact, they specifically include guidelines on how to include it in moderation.0 -
I drink chocolate milk after a run. I do think it's a better alternative than soda. It does have some nutritional value, as opposed to soda which, really, has none. It's like anything else - not something you should have too much of. But after a work out, it's actually a darn good "recovery" drink.
Fair point and yes, it does. It is good in the right context for an informed individual.
Ok, I gotta go train. I may or may not have some chocolate milk
Chocolate milk is awesome. No one needs a certificate or degree to agree. But *not* the low-fat kind. Nope.0 -
That's a lot of broccoli.It's an improvement, but you can't hit your macros if you eat too much broccoli either.
It's a lot of something else too. lol
Replace it with potatoes, or sweat potatoes, corn, etc. We already know you can't overdo one food and hit your macros. So what?
The AHA information was not directed toward a community of people who track everything they eat. It was directed at a population that, increasingly, is overdoing a particular type of food to such an extreme that it is resulting in calorie surplus and weight gain. That's the "so what" in the context of this discussion. Can *you* eat something in excess and make it fit your macros? Sure *you* can. You're paying close attention to everything you eat. Most people aren't. And a simple guideline like "take it easy on added sugar" is more useful in that context then telling them that they need to track every bite they eat.0 -
Have you ever seen or heard of an autopsy report that sited cause of death as 'acute sugar toxicity'?
Yeah, I didn't think so.
Maybe on an episode of "Supernatural" :laugh:0 -
It's an improvement, but you can't hit your macros if you eat too much broccoli either.
Great non sequitur.
No, it's not. You seem to be making an argument that counting added sugars in addition to carbs in general is important. I'm not seeing it add much to the equation.
I didn't say that. I didn't imply that.
Go to your food log. Add 10 cans of Coke. Now try to hit your macros. It may be possible, I'm not sure. It would certainly be hard to do in a sustainable way and would take a lot of effort for someone actively tracking their intake. For someone who isn't it would almost certainly never happen. But there are people who drink that much Coke. On a more reasonable scale, there are people who don't go that far, but have the same issue in a smaller way, leading to weight gain over a longer period of time.
Sugary foods with little or no nutritional value add a lot of calories but do very little work toward hitting your macros. If you get too many of your calories that way, there simply aren't enough left to hit your macros without a calorie surplus. Different words, but exactly what the AHA article I linked to on the subject said. And, again, because going from one extreme to the other is so popular here, I'll point out that they didn't suggest eliminating added sugar from your diet. In fact, they specifically include guidelines on how to include it in moderation.
As I said earlier, the AHA's focus on added sugar isn't necessary. I understand what they are trying to do, and I said that, but it isn't the same as IIFYM. Yes, you may get to the same point, eventually, but I prefer to simplify the approach as much as possible and only worry about what is absolutely critical to reach my goals. That may be where we are coming at this from different views. I think you're being somewhat generous to the AHA.0 -
...but I prefer to simplify the approach...
We are an odd lot. Tracking every bite you take is the "simplified approach".
I think that would be a poor approach for the AHA to take. It's unlikely that many people would start doing that on their advice. It doesn't make for a good headline. I think "watch the added sugar" approach is a lot more likely to have at least some impact. It's inaccurate to characterize that as an attack on sugar. It's a strategy for avoiding a calorie surplus. Your strategy, and mine, is to track everything we eat. In the scheme of things, their strategy really is quite a bit simpler for the average person.0 -
...but I prefer to simplify the approach...
We are an odd lot. Tracking every bite you take is the "simplified approach".
I think that would be a poor approach for the AHA to take. It's unlikely that many people would start doing that on their advice. It doesn't make for a good headline. I think "watch the added sugar" approach is a lot more likely to have at least some impact. It's inaccurate to characterize that as an attack on sugar. It's a strategy for avoiding a calorie surplus. Your strategy, and mine, is to track everything we eat. In the scheme of things, their strategy really is quite a bit simpler for the average person.
And yet, the existence of this thread is a good example of why its message is off.
But, I'm confused as either it's the same or not.
I'll keep focusing on protein, fats, and fiber.
It seems to be working.0 -
...but I prefer to simplify the approach...
We are an odd lot. Tracking every bite you take is the "simplified approach".
I think that would be a poor approach for the AHA to take. It's unlikely that many people would start doing that on their advice. It doesn't make for a good headline. I think "watch the added sugar" approach is a lot more likely to have at least some impact. It's inaccurate to characterize that as an attack on sugar. It's a strategy for avoiding a calorie surplus. Your strategy, and mine, is to track everything we eat. In the scheme of things, their strategy really is quite a bit simpler for the average person.
And yet, the existence of this thread is a good example of why its message is off.
But, I'm confused as either it's the same or not.
I'll keep focusing on protein, fats, and fiber.
It seems to be working.
As I said, I don't think a community of people who track everything they eat is their target. I'd wager if everyone did what we do, the AHA would be right happy.
"Include the foods you like in moderation" is the same as "Include the foods you like in moderation". To that degree, what they're saying is very much like IIFYM.0 -
Have you ever seen or heard of an autopsy report that sited cause of death as 'acute sugar toxicity'?
Yeah, I didn't think so.
Maybe on an episode of "Supernatural" :laugh:
Bwah ha ha ha ha!!
0 -
Joanne, you definitely have balls starting a thread about sugar
Not really - it's all she does. It's like she is a robot programmed to spam misinformation as often as possible.
True! I had to block her because she kept harassing me.
I just started a thread titled "I love sugar". It seemed to work, because she hasn't bugged me since. (jk)0 -
...but I prefer to simplify the approach...
We are an odd lot. Tracking every bite you take is the "simplified approach".
I think that would be a poor approach for the AHA to take. It's unlikely that many people would start doing that on their advice. It doesn't make for a good headline. I think "watch the added sugar" approach is a lot more likely to have at least some impact. It's inaccurate to characterize that as an attack on sugar. It's a strategy for avoiding a calorie surplus. Your strategy, and mine, is to track everything we eat. In the scheme of things, their strategy really is quite a bit simpler for the average person.
And yet, the existence of this thread is a good example of why its message is off.
But, I'm confused as either it's the same or not.
I'll keep focusing on protein, fats, and fiber.
It seems to be working.
As I said, I don't think a community of people who track everything they eat is their target. I'd wager if everyone did what we do, the AHA would be right happy.
"Include the foods you like in moderation" is the same as "Include the foods you like in moderation". To that degree, what they're saying is very much like IIFYM.
It is but it's not? Okay. Got it.
Here's a radical thought, perhaps the AHA should tell people to watch their calories and macros? I know. No one ever has success with that. It's much easier to create a boogeyman in sugar. Then maybe we can attack fast food . . .0 -
...but I prefer to simplify the approach...
We are an odd lot. Tracking every bite you take is the "simplified approach".
I think that would be a poor approach for the AHA to take. It's unlikely that many people would start doing that on their advice. It doesn't make for a good headline. I think "watch the added sugar" approach is a lot more likely to have at least some impact. It's inaccurate to characterize that as an attack on sugar. It's a strategy for avoiding a calorie surplus. Your strategy, and mine, is to track everything we eat. In the scheme of things, their strategy really is quite a bit simpler for the average person.
And yet, the existence of this thread is a good example of why its message is off.
But, I'm confused as either it's the same or not.
I'll keep focusing on protein, fats, and fiber.
It seems to be working.
As I said, I don't think a community of people who track everything they eat is their target. I'd wager if everyone did what we do, the AHA would be right happy.
"Include the foods you like in moderation" is the same as "Include the foods you like in moderation". To that degree, what they're saying is very much like IIFYM.
It is but it's not? Okay. Got it.
Here's a radical thought, perhaps the AHA should tell people to watch their calories and macros? I know. No one ever has success with that. It's much easier to create a boogeyman in sugar. Then maybe we can attack fast food . . .
No. You're wrong.
Nothing really to ad, but I don't want you to have to stop arguing on my account. You seem to be enjoying it.
I think it's clear that you're not happy with how the AHA is trying to disseminate their message. I'm a big fan of "eat less, exercise more". But evidence every magazine cover at the supermarket, it's not a popular message to sell. I think the AHA is just trying to find a way to influence people's behavior in a positive way. Perhaps they are misguided. I'm not sure. I'd need to see their research to make an educated marketing recommendation. But my instincts say they're probably closer to the mark than they'd be with "Hit your macros". Most people, I'd guess, would say "What's a macro?" Complex messages are difficult to advertise and their share of voice is minuscule, making it exponentially more difficult.
But enough of that. I'll get back to marketing what I'm being paid to market.
(edit) And worth noting - again - they didn't say "sugar". They said "added sugar". And they didn't say to eliminate it. They said to enjoy it in moderation. Not a very effective way to portray a "boogeyman".0 -
...but I prefer to simplify the approach...
We are an odd lot. Tracking every bite you take is the "simplified approach".
I think that would be a poor approach for the AHA to take. It's unlikely that many people would start doing that on their advice. It doesn't make for a good headline. I think "watch the added sugar" approach is a lot more likely to have at least some impact. It's inaccurate to characterize that as an attack on sugar. It's a strategy for avoiding a calorie surplus. Your strategy, and mine, is to track everything we eat. In the scheme of things, their strategy really is quite a bit simpler for the average person.
And yet, the existence of this thread is a good example of why its message is off.
But, I'm confused as either it's the same or not.
I'll keep focusing on protein, fats, and fiber.
It seems to be working.
As I said, I don't think a community of people who track everything they eat is their target. I'd wager if everyone did what we do, the AHA would be right happy.
"Include the foods you like in moderation" is the same as "Include the foods you like in moderation". To that degree, what they're saying is very much like IIFYM.
It is but it's not? Okay. Got it.
Here's a radical thought, perhaps the AHA should tell people to watch their calories and macros? I know. No one ever has success with that. It's much easier to create a boogeyman in sugar. Then maybe we can attack fast food . . .
No. You're wrong.
Nothing really to ad, but I don't want you to have to stop arguing on my account. You seem to be enjoying it.
I think it's clear that you're not happy with how the AHA is trying to disseminate their message. I'm a big fan of "eat less, exercise more". But evidence every magazine cover at the supermarket, it's not a popular message to sell. I think the AHA is just trying to find a way to influence people's behavior in a positive way. Perhaps they are misguided. I'm not sure. I'd need to see their research to make an educated marketing recommendation. But my instincts say they're probably closer to the mark than they'd be with "Hit your macros". Most people, I'd guess, would say "What's a macro?" Complex messages are difficult to advertise and their share of voice is minuscule, making it exponentially more difficult.
But enough of that. I'll get back to marketing what I'm being paid to market.
(edit) And worth noting - again - they didn't say "sugar". They said "added sugar". And they didn't say to eliminate it. They said to enjoy it in moderation. Not a very effective way to portray a "boogeyman".
You say you have nothing to add but go on ad nauseum and I'm the one who likes to argue?
Yes. Added sugar.
I believe that honesty is the best approach, because the unintended result of a message that keeps repeating the word "sugar" to the general public is "sugar is bad." You should know that if you listened in your marketing classes. I know I did during my MBA program.0 -
...but I prefer to simplify the approach...
We are an odd lot. Tracking every bite you take is the "simplified approach".
I think that would be a poor approach for the AHA to take. It's unlikely that many people would start doing that on their advice. It doesn't make for a good headline. I think "watch the added sugar" approach is a lot more likely to have at least some impact. It's inaccurate to characterize that as an attack on sugar. It's a strategy for avoiding a calorie surplus. Your strategy, and mine, is to track everything we eat. In the scheme of things, their strategy really is quite a bit simpler for the average person.
And yet, the existence of this thread is a good example of why its message is off.
But, I'm confused as either it's the same or not.
I'll keep focusing on protein, fats, and fiber.
It seems to be working.
As I said, I don't think a community of people who track everything they eat is their target. I'd wager if everyone did what we do, the AHA would be right happy.
"Include the foods you like in moderation" is the same as "Include the foods you like in moderation". To that degree, what they're saying is very much like IIFYM.
It is but it's not? Okay. Got it.
Here's a radical thought, perhaps the AHA should tell people to watch their calories and macros? I know. No one ever has success with that. It's much easier to create a boogeyman in sugar. Then maybe we can attack fast food . . .
No. You're wrong.
Nothing really to ad, but I don't want you to have to stop arguing on my account. You seem to be enjoying it.
I think it's clear that you're not happy with how the AHA is trying to disseminate their message. I'm a big fan of "eat less, exercise more". But evidence every magazine cover at the supermarket, it's not a popular message to sell. I think the AHA is just trying to find a way to influence people's behavior in a positive way. Perhaps they are misguided. I'm not sure. I'd need to see their research to make an educated marketing recommendation. But my instincts say they're probably closer to the mark than they'd be with "Hit your macros". Most people, I'd guess, would say "What's a macro?" Complex messages are difficult to advertise and their share of voice is minuscule, making it exponentially more difficult.
But enough of that. I'll get back to marketing what I'm being paid to market.
(edit) And worth noting - again - they didn't say "sugar". They said "added sugar". And they didn't say to eliminate it. They said to enjoy it in moderation. Not a very effective way to portray a "boogeyman".
You say you have nothing to add but go on ad nauseum and I'm the one who likes to argue?
Yes. Added sugar.
I believe that honesty is the best approach, because the unintended result of a message that keeps repeating the word "sugar" to the general public is "sugar is bad." You should know that if you listened in your marketing classes. I know I did during my MBA program.
I think you're wrong. I'd need to see your resume. Not buying it. Try again. BTW, I've won 12 Emmy awards for advertising. Top that! I use one as a banana tree in my office. It makes people laugh.
lol Sorry, I shouldn't be enjoying this so much.0 -
Te he. I crack myself up sometimes.
0 -
...but I prefer to simplify the approach...
We are an odd lot. Tracking every bite you take is the "simplified approach".
I think that would be a poor approach for the AHA to take. It's unlikely that many people would start doing that on their advice. It doesn't make for a good headline. I think "watch the added sugar" approach is a lot more likely to have at least some impact. It's inaccurate to characterize that as an attack on sugar. It's a strategy for avoiding a calorie surplus. Your strategy, and mine, is to track everything we eat. In the scheme of things, their strategy really is quite a bit simpler for the average person.
And yet, the existence of this thread is a good example of why its message is off.
But, I'm confused as either it's the same or not.
I'll keep focusing on protein, fats, and fiber.
It seems to be working.
As I said, I don't think a community of people who track everything they eat is their target. I'd wager if everyone did what we do, the AHA would be right happy.
"Include the foods you like in moderation" is the same as "Include the foods you like in moderation". To that degree, what they're saying is very much like IIFYM.
It is but it's not? Okay. Got it.
Here's a radical thought, perhaps the AHA should tell people to watch their calories and macros? I know. No one ever has success with that. It's much easier to create a boogeyman in sugar. Then maybe we can attack fast food . . .
No. You're wrong.
Nothing really to ad, but I don't want you to have to stop arguing on my account. You seem to be enjoying it.
I think it's clear that you're not happy with how the AHA is trying to disseminate their message. I'm a big fan of "eat less, exercise more". But evidence every magazine cover at the supermarket, it's not a popular message to sell. I think the AHA is just trying to find a way to influence people's behavior in a positive way. Perhaps they are misguided. I'm not sure. I'd need to see their research to make an educated marketing recommendation. But my instincts say they're probably closer to the mark than they'd be with "Hit your macros". Most people, I'd guess, would say "What's a macro?" Complex messages are difficult to advertise and their share of voice is minuscule, making it exponentially more difficult.
But enough of that. I'll get back to marketing what I'm being paid to market.
(edit) And worth noting - again - they didn't say "sugar". They said "added sugar". And they didn't say to eliminate it. They said to enjoy it in moderation. Not a very effective way to portray a "boogeyman".
You say you have nothing to add but go on ad nauseum and I'm the one who likes to argue?
Yes. Added sugar.
I believe that honesty is the best approach, because the unintended result of a message that keeps repeating the word "sugar" to the general public is "sugar is bad." You should know that if you listened in your marketing classes. I know I did during my MBA program.
I think you're wrong. I'd need to see your resume. Not buying it. Try again. BTW, I've won 12 Emmy awards for advertising. Top that! I use one as a banana tree in my office. It makes people laugh.
lol Sorry, I shouldn't be enjoying this so much.
lol :flowerforyou:0 -
I'd post a picture of it if I could figure out how. It is kinda funny.
Yeah, that one is too hard for me apparently.
It doesn't surprise me that it's hard for you0 -
I'd post a picture of it if I could figure out how. It is kinda funny.
Yeah, that one is too hard for me apparently.
It doesn't surprise me that it's hard for you
That's what she said.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions