HOW MUCH SUGAR IS TOO MUCH?
Options
Replies
-
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
- 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