HOW MUCH SUGAR IS TOO MUCH?
Options
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.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 . . .0 -
Even in the study itself, it states IF fructose is taken in ONLY by itself, absorption and insulin response is different. However as stated in the study I posted, there really isn't a way to ISOLATE just fructose alone in the human diet.
Really?Fruit?? of course not. Sugar is made up of glucose and fructose and fructose is the problem. It is NOT metabolized as glucose is... Simplicity does not need to be complicated. A healthy diet is low in sugar and that way of eating helps one to lose weight and maintain an ideal weight.. plain and simple
This equivalence is not surprising given that both of these sugars contain approximately equal amounts of fructose and glucose, contain the same number of calories, possess the same level of sweetness, and are absorbed identically through the gastrointestinal tract. Research comparing pure fructose with pure glucose, although interesting from a scientific point of view, has limited application to human nutrition given that neither is consumed to an appreciable degree in isolation in the human diet.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23493540
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I guess we can go back and forth with articles. I prefer to refer to the gold standards.. with all due respect to the government, I'm with so many other Americans who feel that it has done us more harm than good with respect to the food we eat.
Fructose is metabolized in the liver... too much is the result of obesity in this country and many others and many others coming down the line
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION... http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/4/895.full
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
I want to be understood that sugar is not toxic.... the amount that the average american is eating is toxic
Americans aren't even top-20 for consumption of refined sugar, and many of the countries that consume more than the US have noticeably better health outcomes for their populations.
Your claim is not supported by the facts.
I would ask you to prove your assertions.
ETA: Apparently Credit Swisse (of all people) are concerned about the economic impact of sugar consumption and disease in the Swiss people: https://www.credit-suisse.com/ca/en/news-and-expertise/topics/health-care.article.html/article/pwp/news-and-expertise/2013/09/en/is-sugar-turning-the-economy-sour.html0 -
Really?Fruit?? of course not. Sugar is made up of glucose and fructose and fructose is the problem. It is NOT metabolized as glucose is... Simplicity does not need to be complicated. A healthy diet is low in sugar and that way of eating helps one to lose weight and maintain an ideal weight.. plain and simple
This equivalence is not surprising given that both of these sugars contain approximately equal amounts of fructose and glucose, contain the same number of calories, possess the same level of sweetness, and are absorbed identically through the gastrointestinal tract. Research comparing pure fructose with pure glucose, although interesting from a scientific point of view, has limited application to human nutrition given that neither is consumed to an appreciable degree in isolation in the human diet.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23493540
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I guess we can go back and forth with articles. I prefer to refer to the gold standards.. with all due respect to the government, I'm with so many other Americans who feel that it has done us more harm than good with respect to the food we eat.
Fructose is metabolized in the liver... too much is the result of obesity in this country and many others and many others coming down the line
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION... http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/4/895.full
Where does that article say what you are implying it says?
I am not implying the article says anything. I posted it as a very reliable source.
So why did you link something that you say does not say anything related to your post?0 -
Gold standard? That wasn't a study. Bray believes we live in a toxic world.
Really?Fruit?? of course not. Sugar is made up of glucose and fructose and fructose is the problem. It is NOT metabolized as glucose is... Simplicity does not need to be complicated. A healthy diet is low in sugar and that way of eating helps one to lose weight and maintain an ideal weight.. plain and simple
This equivalence is not surprising given that both of these sugars contain approximately equal amounts of fructose and glucose, contain the same number of calories, possess the same level of sweetness, and are absorbed identically through the gastrointestinal tract. Research comparing pure fructose with pure glucose, although interesting from a scientific point of view, has limited application to human nutrition given that neither is consumed to an appreciable degree in isolation in the human diet.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23493540
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I guess we can go back and forth with articles. I prefer to refer to the gold standards.. with all due respect to the government, I'm with so many other Americans who feel that it has done us more harm than good with respect to the food we eat.
Fructose is metabolized in the liver... too much is the result of obesity in this country and many others and many others coming down the line
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION... http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/4/895.full
George Bray? lol"George Bray is a leading obesity researcher and is the former director of a CORE facility. He is also Director Emeritus of AOA. Bray has been described by author Ellen Ruppel Shell as a "tireless proselytizer for obesity drugs." A July 2005 Seattle Times article noted:
"A consultant for numerous drug companies for more than three decades, Bray holds patents for such things as low-fat potato chips, a cream to reduce fat thighs, and treatment for metabolic disorders."
Bray was a leading investigator of Roche's Xenical, along with Xavier Pi-Sunyer. The financial disclosure of one study on the drug's effects stated that Bray:
"...has received research grant support for the study of Orlistat from Hoffman-La Roche. He has also received research grants from Johnson & Johnson, Regeneron, Proctor and Gamble, and Novartis and has been a member of advisory boards and speaker bureaus for Johnson & Johnson and Takeda Pharmaceuticals."
These are companies that benefit from the notion that obesity is a disease, rather than an issue of personal responsibility—as do the companies that produced the weight-loss thigh cream he researched. Bray has come under fire for testifying on behalf of fen-phen makers at FDA advisory panel hearings and for being paid for court testimony on behalf of a company whose ephedra product his center researched. In a 2005 interview with CORE's journal, Bray attempted to medicalize excess weight by claiming:
"Since we don't fully understand the causes of obesity, we should take the patient's responsibility out of it. Rather than focusing on the gluttony, sloth, and moral issues, it is far better to address the neurochemical imbalance and why it occurs."0 -
I want to be understood that sugar is not toxic.... the amount that the average american is eating is toxic
Americans aren't even top-20 for consumption of refined sugar, and many of the countries that consume more than the US have noticeably better health outcomes for their populations.
Your claim is not supported by the facts.
I would ask you to prove your assertions.
Google will take you to the primary sources. Between 1870 and 1930, US sugar consumption increased 400%. Between 1930 and today, it has barely increased 25%. You can find the raw numbers at USDA.0 -
I want to be understood that sugar is not toxic.... the amount that the average american is eating is toxic
Americans aren't even top-20 for consumption of refined sugar, and many of the countries that consume more than the US have noticeably better health outcomes for their populations.
Your claim is not supported by the facts.
I would ask you to prove your assertions.
Google will take you to the primary sources. Between 1870 and 1930, US sugar consumption increased 400%. Between 1930 and today, it has barely increased 25%. You can find the raw numbers at USDA.
Apparently, the economic impact of the diseases related to excessive sugar consumption is starting to raise some eyebrows in Switzerland: https://www.credit-suisse.com/ca/en/news-and-expertise/topics/health-care.article.html/article/pwp/news-and-expertise/2013/09/en/is-sugar-turning-the-economy-sour.html
Also--those USDA numbers are meaningless because they are based on production not consumption. The U.S. imports massive quantities of sugar.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.0 -
I want to be understood that sugar is not toxic.... the amount that the average american is eating is toxic
Americans aren't even top-20 for consumption of refined sugar, and many of the countries that consume more than the US have noticeably better health outcomes for their populations.
Your claim is not supported by the facts.
I would ask you to prove your assertions.
ETA: Apparently Credit Swisse (of all people) are concerned about the economic impact of sugar consumption and disease in the Swiss people: https://www.credit-suisse.com/ca/en/news-and-expertise/topics/health-care.article.html/article/pwp/news-and-expertise/2013/09/en/is-sugar-turning-the-economy-sour.html
Yeah, their fear of fat is being turned into a fear of sugar.
Brits Go Nuts over Sugar
The front page of notorious U.K. tabloid the Daily Mail — so notable for hyping scares about everything from cancer to foreigners that somebody made a “headline generator” to show just how ridiculous the paper can be — puts the nutrition nanny-state’s latest implausible claim in stark relief. If the Mail and Robert Lustig-backed pressure group “Action on Sugar” are to be believed, sugar is as bad as tobacco.
They shouldn’t. It’s a common-sense fact that cigarette smoke is harmful from the first inhalation while sugar can (and has) been consumed in moderation for centuries without incident. Likewise, you can’t “catch” obesity or pull it out of the air, like you can with smoky haze. All told, the supposed tobacco equivalence is a claim — like Lustig’s assertion that sugar is “toxic” — that stretches beyond lunacy and is in fact quite irresponsible.
All credible evidence indicates that targeting a single ingredient as the cause of obesity and not fostering a whole-lifestyle approach to weight control will not succeed in reducing obesity. While Lustig and his cohorts pull out of thin air a demand for a law requiring a 30-percent reduction in sugar content, food companies are following science and consumer demand to make changes that will actually help.
Remember the pledge to reduce calories in the food supply by 1.5 trillion per year? The partnership of companies that made the pledge declared success early last year, two full years ahead of schedule. Activists whined that it wasn’t enough (even though the reduction is more effective at reducing calories than the horribly unpopular soda tax they demand would be), and dour food scold Marion Nestle seemed to imply that the companies might be fudging the figures.
Well, the independent analysis is in—and the companies beat their goal by 400%, cutting total calories sold by 6.4 trillion. Consumer demand and voluntary action have succeeded where government programs have failed and will continue to fail. We think there’s a lesson for the Lustig crowd here, but we aren’t holding our breaths expecting them to take it.
*from CCF.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.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
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 404 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 987 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions