Sugar and processed food good or bad?
Replies
-
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.0 -
She's a lawyer. She knows damn good and well what a false dichotomy is and how to employ one, and all the other logical fallacies too, I'm sure.I said you presented a false dichotomy. That means that you presented two options as if one had to choose one or the other when the reality is that there are other options. This is a type of logical fallacy.
Who is a lawyer? Lindsey1979?
Lindsey has said that she has some kind of law background in previous forum posts.
You don't say. That explains the consistent use of arguments that sound convincing but are inconsistent, appeal to emotion, and violate logic.. combined with a general misunderstanding of biology.
Oh, lordy...my general misunderstanding of biology. Well, I guess UC Berkeley will just have to disagree with you on that one.
I see, I see. What relevant degrees or employment do you have from UC Berkeley?
Are you sure you want to know? Because I mentioned it ONCE before and seem to get endless grief from it since -- as evidenced by bringing up in this thread again by other posters...
I'm sure I want to know. If you have some actual expertise in this field, it's highly relevant. And you did mention your education in two separate posts so far. So, yes, I definitely want to know.
JD and bachelors in integrative biology.0 -
You are what you eat.0
-
Congrats, OP, you have successfully stirred this pot yet again.0
-
I say there is no good or bad.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 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.0 -
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.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
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.
Here are some references.
American Dietetic Association. Use of nutritive and nonnutritive sweeteners. Journal of the American Dietetic Association. 2004. 104:255-275.
American Medical Association. Report 3 of the Council on Science and Public Health. The health effects of high fructose syrup. July 23, 2009.
American Medical Association. AMA finds high fructose syrup unlikely to be more harmful to health than other calorie sweeteners. American Medical Association Press Release. June 19, 2008.
Forshee RA, Storey ML, Allison DB, Glinsmann WH, Hein GL, Lineback DR, Miller SA, Nicklas TA, Weaver GA, White JS. 2007. A critical examination of the evidence relating high fructose corn syrup and weight gain. Critical Review Food Science Nutrition. 47(6):561-82.
Melanson KJ, Angelopoulos TJ, Nguyen V, Zukley L, Lowndes J, Rippe JM. Dec. 2008. High-fructose corn syrup, energy intake, and appetite regulation. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 88(6):1738S-1744S.
Soenen S, Westerterp-Plantenga MS. Dec. 2007. No differences in satiety or energy intake after high-fructose corn syrup, sucrose, or milk preloads. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 86(6):1586-94.0 -
To be fair, given the current job market, a J.D. may only qualify someone to speak to the differences between a cortado and a macchiato.
0 -
Are you kidding me?! Canned's got 250% the sodium of the fresh ones! :bigsmile: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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
I won't hold that against you. Someone I am very tight with holds a JD and we get along like a house on fire. Specious and fallacious arguments and all.JD and bachelors in integrative biology. 0 -
I say there is no good or bad.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 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.
Your argument fails because it lacks context.0 -
I say there is no good or bad.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 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.
Just because someone has them on the regular STILL doesn't make them crave it more.
Also, 10-15 years down the road whose to say he's not still lifting all the heavy things and doing what he's doing now?
Cheesecake should not be feared, it should be loved, enjoyed and eaten. Because it's good.0 -
If they're dim enough to need it boiled down to "good" and "bad", they don't deserve cheesecake.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.0 -
I say there is no good or bad.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 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........0 -
Anyway, I just ate a heavily processed, sugar-loaded Powerbar and chugged an artificially-sweetened, chemical-laden Monster Ultra Zero. So it's time to go lift some heavy things.0
-
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.html0 -
Please provide peer-reviewed studies to back up your extraordinary claim.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. 0 -
I say there is no good or bad.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 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.0 -
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.
She has a bachelors in integrative biology and doesn't understand the peer review process?
I'm going to trust you about your experience about the curriculum and standard being lacking. :laugh:0 -
They taste good. So my vote is for good.
Yup. And they even provide energy and nutrients. Cheetos have protein y'all.0 -
I say there is no good or bad.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 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 are trying to say 30g of fat and 32g of sugar is unhealthy is terrifying.0 -
Here is my two cents worth:
The question as posed requires one of two answeres..."good" Or "bad", which in and of itself is going to create an argument. There are going to be strong opinions on both sides of the fence. For me there needs to be an “answer C ….neither”. Sugar and processed food is neither good nor bad.
We get so hung up on “good food” and “bad food” which I personally feel leads to so many dietary failures.
I did not get overweight because I ate “bad food”!! I got overweight because I ate TOO MANY CALORIES…period.
I changed how much I was eating and added exercise which in turn resulted in the number below. In other words…I ate less…and I moved more. The only thing I eliminated from my diet is a lot of unnecessary calories. I still eat chocolate every night…but only a serving….not a whole bag.0 -
nope, not an outlier.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.
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, 1185-1196.0 -
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.
Total lies.
I don't understand the process for the peer-reivewed journal articles? Oh, that's surprising considering I used to be an editor for one. Hahaha.
You are/were totally wrong about per se, but don't want to either admit that, or don't understand it. Or don't understand what intrinsically means, which is totally possible.
Want to go back to that post? Because I'm pretty sure I said something to the effect of "I don't know what his personal psychological issues are per se, but whatever they are, they're significant." Correct usage. You also struggled with how personal could be a modifier to psychological -- which I also explained.
Talk about revisionist history.0 -
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.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions