Sugar and processed food good or bad?

BusyRaeNOTBusty

One week worth of cheesecake isn't going to turn you into a diabetic or give you high triglycerides. It happens over many years. Sure, you may be fine now, but that's not to say you'll be fine in 10-15 years.

1/6 of Sara Lee NY style cheesecake: 490 calories, 30 g fat, 48 g carbs, 32 g sugar. A slice of original cheesecake from The Cheesecake Factory: 710 calories, 48 g fat, 62 g carbs, 36 g sugar. Full of fat and full of sugar. If you don't see what's wrong with that, I suggest taking a nutrition course. I'd much rather eat an avocado or pistachios that actually have nutritional benefits.

You forgot protein and calcium. I bet cheesecake has some decent protein and calcium.

lindsey1979

JD and bachelors in integrative biology.

"The Department of Integrative Biology (IB) offers Undergradate and Graduate academic programs as well as Faculty Research that focuses on the integration of structure and function that influences the biology, ecology, and evolution of organisms. It investigates integration at all levels of organization from molecules to the biosphere, and in all branches of the tree of life: plants, animals, fungi, and microbes."

Doesn't sound all that relevant, especially considering it's an undergraduate degree.

Johnny, she didn't understand the peer-review process for journal articles, but tried to explain it (incorrectly) to another.
Also, I tried to explain how she was using the phrase "per se" incorrectly, but she was having no part of that either.

In my n=2 experience with UC Berkeley undergraduates (which obviously means nothing to anyone but me), the curriculum or standards are somewhat lacking.

How much experience do you have with their JDs and IB students? Because that's the only that really matters, and last time I checked, we were ranked in the top 5 for biological sciences and top 10 for law school (5th for law reviews).

Nice post, DamePiglet. Classy.

Biggirllittledreams

Food (processed or not) is not a polarized topic- it exists on a spectrum. All food contains some sort of nutrient/mineral/etc., so everything in moderation my friend.

lindsey1979

I'm afraid I've never watched Swamp People. But, you're saying that were you live, you actually recommend that people increase their intake of processed foods, eating at restaurants, frozen meals rather than making better nutritional choices in ingredients for their home cooked meals?

You present a false dichotomy. The point is to get the right nutrients, not choose better ingredients in home cooked meals vs eating more processed foods.

Why not? Why wouldn't you want to choose better ingredients in home cooked meals (for those that already have the time and inclination to cook) rather than supplementing with more processed foods?

What are the these mysterious 'better ingredients' you speak of? If one can hit their nutrient and macro goals eating processed foods, there is nothing 'better' about the ingredients of home cooked meals. Flour is flour, salt is salt, baking soda is baking soda, on and on.

True, but home-cooked meals don't have some of the additives that many processed foods do. For example, how many people do you know that cook with high fructose corn syrup rather than sugar or honey? In my entire life, I've never seen a recipe call for high fructose corn syrup -- even those that call for karo syrup don't use high fructose corn syrup. And, yet you'll see HFCS in a lot of processed foods. It's fairly common.

They use it because it is cheap and sweeter than sucrose, so they don't have to use as much. As far as your body is concerned, it doesn't know the difference between sucrose, fructose (honey, corn syrup, agave nectar) or any other 'ose'. It just breaks it down and uses it however it likes. I won't go into the whole mol bio of the sugars with you, because I know you have seen it before.

But isn't there some studies behind the use of fructose without fiber (like you'd normally see in natural occurring sources like fruit)? I don't remember off the top of my head, but I remember reading that a ways back.

Sorry, I edited before I saw your post. I am not aware of any studies that show fructose from fruits is handled any differently by your body than when it is blended with sucrose in a syrup.

Found this:

"How is fructose metabolized?

The metabolism of fructose has been studied for decades and is well documented in the scientific literature. Fructose is metabolized primarily by the liver. Fructose is not toxic to the liver, as has been suggested. Regardless of the fructose source (e.g., fruits, vegetables, honey, HFCS, crystalline fructose or table sugar) it is metabolized using the same pathways.

http://www.fructose.org/q_and_a.html

I'll have to look for it. My understanding is that the fructose is the same, but the difference is with and without fiber (like you'd see in whole fruits).

wheird

I just ask because it seems like quite a few people say that there is no good or bad, but then they'll follow up with some comment about good/bad for them, better/worse for weight loss, nutrition, etc.? Or how it's linked to some value judgment?

I say there is no good or bad.

I follow that up with - there is then making it fit your macro and micronutrient goals.

I get irked when people try and describe food as healthy or unhealthy.

Sure, said cheese cake I described earlier would be 'unhealthy' for an overweight person with insulin issues and so on.

For an underweight person recovery from ED, eating a load of cheesecake might be 'healthy' for their body.

Again; does it meet your aims/goals. Then go for it good/healthy etc for you in this place.
If it can't fit in, then bad/unhealthy.

Before doing an ultramarathon I did a load of resarch on carb loading.
I needed to eat over 800g of carbs in one day.
Avoid foods high in fibre. Avoid fructose.

For most people, that would be considered a very 'unhealthy' day - for me that day, it was an ideal 'healthy' preperation and choosing foods like salads and high fibre vegetables would be a terrible idea.

Cheesecake isn't healthy for an underweight, normal weight, or overweight person. Point period blank. It's extremely fattening and full of sugar.

You are what you eat. Sure, a slice of cheesecake once in a blue moon won't kill you but the more you eat these foods, the more you want them. Continue with this theory of yours that it's okay to eat these foods on the regular as long as they fit your goals, and before you know it, you'll be overweight and diabetic one day.

I've eaten cheesecake almost every night for the past week, just had my latest blood work done all improved and far from diabetic and no longer obese.

What's so wrong with cheesecake it's cream cheese, 1 cup of sugar, typically 2 eggs, and vanilla extract and the crust.

One week worth of cheesecake isn't going to turn you into a diabetic or give you high triglycerides. It happens over many years. Sure, you may be fine now, but that's not to say you'll be fine in 10-15 years.

1/6 of Sara Lee NY style cheesecake: 490 calories, 30 g fat, 48 g carbs, 32 g sugar. A slice of original cheesecake from The Cheesecake Factory: 710 calories, 48 g fat, 62 g carbs, 36 g sugar. Full of fat and full of sugar. If you don't see what's wrong with that, I suggest taking a nutrition course. I'd much rather eat an avocado or pistachios that actually have nutritional benefits.

I don't see what's wrong with 30 grams of fat and 32 grams of sugar in a day, no. A decent size Honeycrisp apple has 35 grams of sugar, and one avocado has about 30 grams of fat.

So........

The fact that you are trying to compare cheesecake to an apple and avocado is just comical.

The fact that you cannot see the rationale behind being able to compare them is even more alarming.

parkscs

Where "good" and "bad" labels may have benefit is for the vast majority of people, who don't log their food, track their calories or track their macros. If you carefully weigh everything and budget for a piece of cheesecake, then I don't see the harm in eating cheesecake. On the other hand, if you take average Joe who does not count calories, goes out to dinner in the evening and is contemplating having a piece of cheesecake for dessert, it may be worth it for Joe to remember cheesecake as a "fattening" food in the sense that it's calorically dense, and to the extent that such a thought makes average Joe reflect on his diet/activity levels for the week before ordering, that's likely a good thing and not as "unhealthy" as some people try to make it out to be. Moreover, I suspect that if you consider the average American and answer the question of "should they have a piece of cheesecake for dessert tonight?" the answer is likely a resounding "no" - and that's what I suspect leads people to call these foods "bad." Of course, if you're talking about someone who's tracking their calories expended and their calories/fat/carbs/protein consumed every day, labels such as "good" and "bad" don't really apply.

If they're dim enough to need it boiled down to "good" and "bad", they don't deserve cheesecake.

If you look at how I laid out the definition ("a 'fattening' food in the sense that it's calorically dense, and to the extent that such a thought makes average Joe reflect on his diet/activity levels for the week before ordering"), I'm not saying even "bad" or "fattening" foods should be categorically avoided. I'm just saying that such labels may be useful to remind people that rich foods should be eaten in moderation; and that's almost certainly why such labels were created, because the vast majority of people don't keep detailed data sheets about what they eat and burn on a daily basis. Labels such as "fattening" are effectively rules of thumb that people can use when planning their diet, when they don't have all the data on caloric intake/caloric expenditure/macronutrient intake/etc. to help them decide. And just my opinion, but I think it's presumptuous to suggest people are stupid just because they may associate a label with a food. You could just as easily label the food "rich" instead of "bad", if "bad" is so offensive, but personally I think the meaning of the label is more important than what you call it.

QuietBloom

JD and bachelors in integrative biology.

"The Department of Integrative Biology (IB) offers Undergradate and Graduate academic programs as well as Faculty Research that focuses on the integration of structure and function that influences the biology, ecology, and evolution of organisms. It investigates integration at all levels of organization from molecules to the biosphere, and in all branches of the tree of life: plants, animals, fungi, and microbes."

Doesn't sound all that relevant, especially considering it's an undergraduate degree.

Really? That doesn't sound all that relative to the general understanding of biology? Not to mention that if you knew much about the program, you'd know that people often take courses in both IB and MCB (molecular and cell biology). Had I had two more MCB course rather than IB courses, then I would have ended up with the MCB degree instead.

And IB courses cover all the major organ systems (if you choose to take them) -- general anatomy, endocrinolgy, histology, etc. You can also focus on other areas that are not related to the human body -- some focus on ecology, animal behavior, population genetics, macro/micro evolution, etc. I personally took a lot of the human body related courses in both IB and MCB as I was considering a MD at the time.

Not relevant at all...C'mon, that's sort of funny.

Well that's terrible. I used to think UC Berkeley was a decent institution. But, then again, I've learned over and over again that degrees generally mean very little, and that undergraduate degrees mean virtually nothing whatsoever. I'd never tout my degrees to back my arguments here, even though they are relevant.

UC Berkley DID used to be a decent institution. But the UC system is going with more and more of a liberal arts bent, no matter what they call the degree. While they feel they are broadening student's knowledge base, they fail to realize that they are significantly decreasing the depth of any particular subject.

Fullsterkur_woman

The fact that you are trying to compare cheesecake to an apple and avocado is just comical.

Right?! Cheesecake is hundreds of times more delicious.

lindsey1979

I just believe that you'll get to your nutrient intake with less empty calories and unnecessary, potentially harmfully additives opting for "better ingredients" in home cooked meals than with a bunch of highly processed foods -- at least as a general rule.

Now this all came from the MFP Databases...

Delmonte Canned Green Beans
Calories 20
Sodium 10
Potassium 95
Carbs 4
Fiber 2
Sugars 2
Protein 1

Fresh Green Beans
Calories 17
Sodium 4
Potassium 115
Carbs 4
Fiber 2
Sugar 2
Protein 1

Honestly, not much difference.

But, do most processed foods contain just the fruit/vegetable, salt and water? I think it is likely a significant outlier.

nope, not an outlier.

Abstract: The first of a two-part review of the recent and classical literature reveals that loss of nutrients in fresh products during storage and cooking may be more substantial than commonly perceived. Depending on the commodity, freezing and canning processes may preserve nutrient value

Rickman JC, Barrett DM, and Bruhn CM (2007). Nutritional comparison of fresh, frozen and canned fruits and vegetables. Part I. Vitamins C and B and phenolic compounds. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 87, 930-944.

Rickman JC, Barrett DM, and Bruhn CM (2007). Nutritional comparison of fresh, frozen and canned fruits and vegetables. Part II. Vitamin A and carotenoids, vitamin E, minerals and fiber. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 87, 1185-1196.

Well, I think it depends on what you're comparing. If you're only comparing canned veggies to fresh veggies, perhaps. But if you're comparing fresh veggies to all processed foods that contain that veggie, I think it's a considerably different scenario.

For example, even looking just at fruits, a lot of canned fruits (but not all) add extra sugar via syrup or otherwise that you wouldn't get with the fresh fruit. I know we're starting to see more demand for the no-adeed-sugar added variety -- which is great -- but I don't believe that's been the norm historically.

And when you start looking at highly processed foods -- think crackers, cheetos, etc. -- you get a lot of extra ingredients that you wouldn't otherwise consume if you were choosing to home cook with just the main ingredients.

Fullsterkur_woman

Where "good" and "bad" labels may have benefit is for the vast majority of people, who don't log their food, track their calories or track their macros. If you carefully weigh everything and budget for a piece of cheesecake, then I don't see the harm in eating cheesecake. On the other hand, if you take average Joe who does not count calories, goes out to dinner in the evening and is contemplating having a piece of cheesecake for dessert, it may be worth it for Joe to remember cheesecake as a "fattening" food in the sense that it's calorically dense, and to the extent that such a thought makes average Joe reflect on his diet/activity levels for the week before ordering, that's likely a good thing and not as "unhealthy" as some people try to make it out to be. Moreover, I suspect that if you consider the average American and answer the question of "should they have a piece of cheesecake for dessert tonight?" the answer is likely a resounding "no" - and that's what I suspect leads people to call these foods "bad." Of course, if you're talking about someone who's tracking their calories expended and their calories/fat/carbs/protein consumed every day, labels such as "good" and "bad" don't really apply.

If they're dim enough to need it boiled down to "good" and "bad", they don't deserve cheesecake.

If you look at how I laid out the definition ("a 'fattening' food in the sense that it's calorically dense, and to the extent that such a thought makes average Joe reflect on his diet/activity levels for the week before ordering"), I'm not saying even "bad" or "fattening" foods should be categorically avoided. I'm just saying that such labels may be useful to remind people that rich foods should be eaten in moderation; and that's almost certainly why such labels were created, because the vast majority of people don't keep detailed data sheets about what they eat and burn on a daily basis. Labels such as "fattening" are effectively rules of thumb that people can use when planning their diet, when they don't have all the data on caloric intake/caloric expenditure/macronutrient intake/etc. to help them decide. And just my opinion, but I think it's presumptuous to suggest people are stupid just because they may associate a label with a food. You could just as easily label the food "rich" instead of "bad", if "bad" is so offensive, but personally I think the meaning of the label is more important than what you call it.

I'm not even necessarily disagreeing with what you're saying. I just feel that anyone who won't put the effort into learning about basic nutrition and calorie/macro/micro counting probably deserves to live a cheesecakeless life. Or at least JSF.

lindsey1979

JD and bachelors in integrative biology.

"The Department of Integrative Biology (IB) offers Undergradate and Graduate academic programs as well as Faculty Research that focuses on the integration of structure and function that influences the biology, ecology, and evolution of organisms. It investigates integration at all levels of organization from molecules to the biosphere, and in all branches of the tree of life: plants, animals, fungi, and microbes."

Doesn't sound all that relevant, especially considering it's an undergraduate degree.

Really? That doesn't sound all that relative to the general understanding of biology? Not to mention that if you knew much about the program, you'd know that people often take courses in both IB and MCB (molecular and cell biology). Had I had two more MCB course rather than IB courses, then I would have ended up with the MCB degree instead.

And IB courses cover all the major organ systems (if you choose to take them) -- general anatomy, endocrinolgy, histology, etc. You can also focus on other areas that are not related to the human body -- some focus on ecology, animal behavior, population genetics, macro/micro evolution, etc. I personally took a lot of the human body related courses in both IB and MCB as I was considering a MD at the time.

Not relevant at all...C'mon, that's sort of funny.

Well that's terrible. I used to think UC Berkeley was a decent institution. But, then again, I've learned over and over again that degrees generally mean very little, and that undergraduate degrees mean virtually nothing whatsoever. I'd never tout my degrees to back my arguments here, even though they are relevant.

What a shame. And this is why I didn't want to bring it up -- and didn't introduce it myself. You and others did. But your whole assertion that I don't have a general understanding of biology is ludicrous. Just ludicrous.

Fullsterkur_woman

And when you start looking at highly processed foods -- think crackers, cheetos, etc. -- you get a lot of extra ingredients that you wouldn't otherwise consume if you were choosing to home cook with just the main ingredients.

But with home cooked, you also don't get Cheetos. Your argument is invalid.*
*Does IIFYM, can't remember last time I had Cheetos. MM are kinda hard to F sometimes.

wheird

I think attacking her degree and school is a low blow.

I only have a HS education and I am effin brilliant.

BusyRaeNOTBusty

I eat a lot of boxed pastas and noodles. I ain't making pasta from scratch, and how is a box with pre-measured seasonings that much different than me trying to measure out and season it myself? Also canned beans. I'm not going to boil beans. That smells horrible. I remember when my mom did it when I was a kid. And deli meat, what else should I put on a sandwich? Plus sausage is just plan delicious. We have made our own sausages from deer meat before but my husband sucks at hunting and only gets one every 4 years or so.

BusyRaeNOTBusty

And when you start looking at highly processed foods -- think crackers, cheetos, etc. -- you get a lot of extra ingredients that you wouldn't otherwise consume if you were choosing to home cook with just the main ingredients.

But with home cooked, you also don't get Cheetos. Your argument is invalid.*
*Does IIFYM, can't remember last time I had Cheetos. MM are kinda hard to F sometimes.

I had the Flamin' hot ones just an hour ago. They are awesome.

lindsey1979

JD and bachelors in integrative biology.

"The Department of Integrative Biology (IB) offers Undergradate and Graduate academic programs as well as Faculty Research that focuses on the integration of structure and function that influences the biology, ecology, and evolution of organisms. It investigates integration at all levels of organization from molecules to the biosphere, and in all branches of the tree of life: plants, animals, fungi, and microbes."

Doesn't sound all that relevant, especially considering it's an undergraduate degree.

Really? That doesn't sound all that relative to the general understanding of biology? Not to mention that if you knew much about the program, you'd know that people often take courses in both IB and MCB (molecular and cell biology). Had I had two more MCB course rather than IB courses, then I would have ended up with the MCB degree instead.

And IB courses cover all the major organ systems (if you choose to take them) -- general anatomy, endocrinolgy, histology, etc. You can also focus on other areas that are not related to the human body -- some focus on ecology, animal behavior, population genetics, macro/micro evolution, etc. I personally took a lot of the human body related courses in both IB and MCB as I was considering a MD at the time.

Not relevant at all...C'mon, that's sort of funny.

Well that's terrible. I used to think UC Berkeley was a decent institution. But, then again, I've learned over and over again that degrees generally mean very little, and that undergraduate degrees mean virtually nothing whatsoever. I'd never tout my degrees to back my arguments here, even though they are relevant.

UC Berkley DID used to be a decent institution. But the UC system is going with more and more of a liberal arts bent, no matter what they call the degree. While they feel they are broadening student's knowledge base, they fail to realize that they are significantly decreasing the depth of any particular subject.

Hmmm...#1 in Chemistry, #1 in Computer Science, #4 in Biological Sciences, #3 in Earth Sciences, #3 in Engineering, #1 in English,, #1 in History, #3 in Math, #1 Public School....and that's with the public school disadvantage of US News.

Yeah, sounds like it's going down the tubes. Another lesson in the reality disconnect on MFP.

lindsey1979

I think attacking her degree and school is a low blow.

I only have a HS education and I am effin brilliant.

So, is my fiance. Self-taught hardware engineer.

FatFreeFrolicking

JD and bachelors in integrative biology.

"The Department of Integrative Biology (IB) offers Undergradate and Graduate academic programs as well as Faculty Research that focuses on the integration of structure and function that influences the biology, ecology, and evolution of organisms. It investigates integration at all levels of organization from molecules to the biosphere, and in all branches of the tree of life: plants, animals, fungi, and microbes."

Doesn't sound all that relevant, especially considering it's an undergraduate degree.

Really? That doesn't sound all that relative to the general understanding of biology? Not to mention that if you knew much about the program, you'd know that people often take courses in both IB and MCB (molecular and cell biology). Had I had two more MCB course rather than IB courses, then I would have ended up with the MCB degree instead.

And IB courses cover all the major organ systems (if you choose to take them) -- general anatomy, endocrinolgy, histology, etc. You can also focus on other areas that are not related to the human body -- some focus on ecology, animal behavior, population genetics, macro/micro evolution, etc. I personally took a lot of the human body related courses in both IB and MCB as I was considering a MD at the time.

Not relevant at all...C'mon, that's sort of funny.

Well that's terrible. I used to think UC Berkeley was a decent institution. But, then again, I've learned over and over again that degrees generally mean very little, and that undergraduate degrees mean virtually nothing whatsoever. I'd never tout my degrees to back my arguments here, even though they are relevant.

What a shame. And this is why I didn't want to bring it up -- and didn't introduce it myself. You and others did. But your whole assertion that I don't have a general understanding of biology is ludicrous. Just ludicrous.

Lindsey girl, ignore them. This is what they are known for. They do it all day long… put others down to bring themselves up. Just sign off and be the bigger person

jonnythan

So what have you done with that undergrad degree in biology, anyway? If I were you I wouldn't advertise that as a major credential if that's as far as it went.

Fullsterkur_woman

I didn't bring it up so we could attack her bio degree. I only mentioned it to point out that I believe she knows her way around an argument and I thought Jonny was being overly charitable in giving her the benefit of the doubt that she didn't know what a false dichotomy was. Whether or not she employed one, I was silent on.

One thing I will give up the respect on for sure, is that Lindsey is nothing if not tenacious. As someone who values education (and slowly yet relentlessly pursuing further education), that tenacity doesn't count for nothing.