Will you change your sugar consumption after watching the 60
Replies
-
This is a copout argument, though. See, the human body doesn't differentiate between added cane sugar or fruit sugar. It just sees sugar, and processes it just like sugar. There's no difference. If you eat an apple, you get some fiber, some sugar, and some vitamins. If I eat a multivitamin, a spoonful of sugar, and a few fiber tablets, I get the same nutrition, and the body will handle both in the same way. Now I certainly agree that getting nutrition from whole foods is preferable to supplementing whenever possible, but my point is valid. It really doesn't make a difference to your body what you decide to arbitrarily "count" or not when it comes to your food choices, it doesn't change the basic biology of how your body works. Sugar is sugar, and as long as you aren't eating excessive amounts, the source doesn't matter, as your body processes it the same way, and uses it for the same purpose: fuel.I didn't see this, but was wondering 'out loud' to you fine people how to keep my sugar below the recommended 25 gms ....which still seems rather low especially if we are to eat a few pieces of fruit daily..in addition to beans...and perhaps a sweet potato???
:ohwell:
The sugar they were concerned with in this particular segment was added sugar, not sugars naturally occuring in real food.
Like I said in the original post, I don't count my fruit or anything like that against my sugar count.0 -
I would have answered this question sooner, but I was too busy drinking a cup of maple syrup for breakfast.
Real answer: I will stick to my apples and bananas and other real food that just happens to contain sugar and not worry about it too much.
EXACTLY.... but this study wasn't talking about natural sugar, it was talking about ADDED sugar. Candies, confections, processed foods, sugary drinks, etc.
A few bananas and a couple apples and I can very easily exceed 100 grams of sugar in a day, which is generally the upper limit for sugar consumption. It really doesn't make a difference if you eat too much sugar from a can of soda or from fruit, too much sugar is too much sugar. If it's bad for you, than it's always bad for you. You can't say it's bad when you want it to be bad, and not bad when you don't want it to be bad. HFCS, Sucrose, sugars from fruit, are all molecularly the same, and processed in the same way by the body.0 -
I would have answered this question sooner, but I was too busy drinking a cup of maple syrup for breakfast.
Real answer: I will stick to my apples and bananas and other real food that just happens to contain sugar and not worry about it too much.
EXACTLY.... but this study wasn't talking about natural sugar, it was talking about ADDED sugar. Candies, confections, processed foods, sugary drinks, etc.
A few bananas and a couple apples and I can very easily exceed 100 grams of sugar in a day, which is generally the upper limit for sugar consumption. It really doesn't make a difference if you eat too much sugar from a can of soda or from fruit, too much sugar is too much sugar. If it's bad for you, than it's always bad for you. You can't say it's bad when you want it to be bad, and not bad when you don't want it to be bad. HFCS, Sucrose, sugars from fruit, are all molecularly the same, and processed in the same way by the body.
Well...this "argument" is liken unto which came first, the chicken or the egg. You'll find just as many "scholars & medical studies" saying/agreeing with you 100% as you will find others that disagree with you 100%. It's a mute point. To each is own. I'll feel better about myself (mentally and even physically) chewing on that big ole sugary organic apple this evening than I will about myself and that soft serve ice cream cone. It's a matter of opinion and choice. Ya know? "This argument" can and will go on ad infinitum. I'll have my big ole apple and some-one else will enjoy the ice cream cone--to each is own, and to thine own self be true, ya know?0 -
I would have answered this question sooner, but I was too busy drinking a cup of maple syrup for breakfast.
Real answer: I will stick to my apples and bananas and other real food that just happens to contain sugar and not worry about it too much.
EXACTLY.... but this study wasn't talking about natural sugar, it was talking about ADDED sugar. Candies, confections, processed foods, sugary drinks, etc.
A few bananas and a couple apples and I can very easily exceed 100 grams of sugar in a day, which is generally the upper limit for sugar consumption. It really doesn't make a difference if you eat too much sugar from a can of soda or from fruit, too much sugar is too much sugar. If it's bad for you, than it's always bad for you. You can't say it's bad when you want it to be bad, and not bad when you don't want it to be bad. HFCS, Sucrose, sugars from fruit, are all molecularly the same, and processed in the same way by the body.
I have a difficult time believing that people will ad lib consume the same amount of sugar eating fruits as they would drinking soda or eating processed foods with added sugar. Sorry I get your point, but I'm not convinced that the source of fructose makes no difference for that simple reason.0 -
bumpHere is the full segment without commercials from 60 Minutes website
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57407294/is-sugar-toxic/?tag=contentMain;cbsCarousel0 -
HAHA! I've been reading a lot of the comments here. I keep seeing things like, "sugar is fine in moderation," "everything is bad for you if you eat enough of it" or "I shouldn't have to give up my sugar - a little bit is fine." I would agree with that, but most people aren't consuming sugar in moderation. Hardly anyone is eating a "little bit" of sugar. If you are eating processed food, you are eating tons of sugar, plus all that other crap. I try to avoid as much processed junk as possible - I make most of my meals from scratch, and I admit that I still eat too much sugar. I don't think this segment is going to change too many minds, because sugar is so fundamental in our diets and people are so jaded by media reports. I think it would be nice if it encouraged people to try to cut back a little, though. :flowerforyou:
Thanks for posting this and a special THANK YOU to the OP for starting this thread
I just watched the 60 minutes spot (about 14 minutes long) and it (and a combination of other things/lifestyle changes) have inspired me to forsake having a kiddie size (which when I was a kid, this size was labeled a medium or even large) ice cream cone I was going to have before bowling tonight.
I deleted it from my food diary and will instead eat an apple and some more almonds and other better choices for me instead.
So, thank you again for posting:drinker:
A large apple has as much if not more sugar then let's say a small kids cone from McD's, just sayin.
That's true and it's the sugar I prefer to eat and will help me fuel my 2+ hours of bowling (burning 497 BIG OLE calories to boot) and striking & sparing it up something fun and fierce tonight.
I'm totally against processed junk/addictive sugar--but loves me some natural fruit sugars, especially before a work-out or bowling. Thanks though for your post :flowerforyou:
You made the right choice. Better to eat the sugar food that doesn't leave you hungrier than you started.
I was under the impression you thought fat and protein were more satiating then carbs, the small cone wins on those those fronts0 -
I'll continue to eat sugar, but nothing like the amounts that I used to. Nothing to do with 60 Minutes, either. I just make better decisions about what I eat based on a common sense approach to dieting.
This is me.
I will continue to eat my 2-3 pieces of fruit per day. I'll continue with my milk and yoghurt. I'll continue with my sweet chocolate treats (but in small portions) and if there is an occasional dessert I'll have some completely guilt free (but again, in smaller portions than what I'm used to.) If this is what will kill me in the end, so be it. I'm feeling 100% more healthy having lost my weight (most pre-MFP) and I did that by making better nutritional choices but maintaining what I felt was sustainable for me in the long term. I actually haven't binged since I started. I've had some treats and I've enjoyed every last morsel, but I haven't gone over-the-top. I prefer not to be scared of my food or feel guilty. And I do enjoy food, a wide variety of food.
I look at my nan. She is 90 this year and never had a major health problem. For the most part she ate three meat and vege for dinner, a sandwich or salad for lunch, weetbix, toast and/or porridge for breakfast. She made desserts and cakes a lot, but as far as I know she never binged on them (as I would've in the past.) But they were there, complete with added sugar, some fruit based, some not. She enjoyed them as a part of a fairly typical (for her time) diet.
Now, I'm not saying her diet is what has led to her good health or a long life. I think there are many factors involved here. And, this is after all only anecdotal. But to me, she was about moderation. There are things in my diet that are healthier than what her diet was/is, but in the past I ate so much processed food. This is what I am aiming to reduce personally. I'll never completely cut it out, but already my diet is so much better and I'm really happy with my sustainable lifestyle change.0 -
I significantly cut down on my consumption of added sugars. Striving for 3 times a week.0
-
Oh FFS, are we going to be allowed to eat ANYTHING anymore? I half-watched it this morning while it was on CBS news but I always take this stuff with a grain of salt. Oh crap, I forgot we can't have salt anymore either...
Hahahahaha! :laugh:0 -
Nope. Over the years, there have been studies, videos, etc that show everything is good or bad for us. A few years ago, it was fat. Don't eat fat. So, I'm going to continue going the way that I have been. I don't have any physical conditions that give me a reason to watch my sugar, so I will carry on with my life as it was.
Can I see you diary, I wanna know how you did it!!
0 -
I have a difficult time believing that people will ad lib consume the same amount of sugar eating fruits as they would drinking soda or eating processed foods with added sugar. Sorry I get your point, but I'm not convinced that the source of fructose makes no difference for that simple reason.
So it really all boils down to moderation then? I can eat some fruit and consume X amount of grams of sugar or I could drink a soda and consume the same amount. The source is not the issue, it's people's inability to control how much they eat.0 -
im not changing a thing i gave up sugar years ago, overall i noticed my health has improved.0
-
I think the obesity epidemic is a direct result of the laziness epidemic that came right after the entitlement epidemic. If people got off their bottoms more often and quit looking to fast food restaurants for their weekly meal plans, there would be less fat folk. I know that's what did me in. I got lazy. I went to Perkins or McD's for breakfast, hit up pizza joints once or twice a week for dinner, did Wendy's and Subway (NOT the Fresh Fit subs, either, lol) for lunch. Lay's potato chips were my best friend and I had never met a cookie I didn't like. Oh, and cake. I really like cake.
That being said, I think America needs to stop looking for a single entity to demonize. This goes for all of our woes. It always seems to be someone else's fault, somebody made me eat that, you shouldn't make that because it'll make me fat, no one told me that sitting on my *kitten* in front of the computer huffing down ho-ho's was bad for me. REALLY?? I'm pretty sure I knew every time I put multiple snacky cakes in my mouth followed by a heaping bowl of cheesy poofs that I wasn't doing my body any favors. It's like blaming the gun maker for the idiot that takes out a school with a gun. Man up, own up, and take responsibility. If you believe removing sugar completely from your diet works for you, by all means, go for it. Just don't demonize it for everyone else, 60 Minutes!0 -
I am going to read about the topic before I make drastic changes. I do believe that I eat too much sugar. Much of what I eat is from fruit though.0
-
Personally I enjoy BOTH apples and ice cream cones. I don't see why I should only choose one or the other.I would have answered this question sooner, but I was too busy drinking a cup of maple syrup for breakfast.
Real answer: I will stick to my apples and bananas and other real food that just happens to contain sugar and not worry about it too much.
EXACTLY.... but this study wasn't talking about natural sugar, it was talking about ADDED sugar. Candies, confections, processed foods, sugary drinks, etc.
A few bananas and a couple apples and I can very easily exceed 100 grams of sugar in a day, which is generally the upper limit for sugar consumption. It really doesn't make a difference if you eat too much sugar from a can of soda or from fruit, too much sugar is too much sugar. If it's bad for you, than it's always bad for you. You can't say it's bad when you want it to be bad, and not bad when you don't want it to be bad. HFCS, Sucrose, sugars from fruit, are all molecularly the same, and processed in the same way by the body.
Well...this "argument" is liken unto which came first, the chicken or the egg. You'll find just as many "scholars & medical studies" saying/agreeing with you 100% as you will find others that disagree with you 100%. It's a mute point. To each is own. I'll feel better about myself (mentally and even physically) chewing on that big ole sugary organic apple this evening than I will about myself and that soft serve ice cream cone. It's a matter of opinion and choice. Ya know? "This argument" can and will go on ad infinitum. I'll have my big ole apple and some-one else will enjoy the ice cream cone--to each is own, and to thine own self be true, ya know?0 -
I have a difficult time believing that people will ad lib consume the same amount of sugar eating fruits as they would drinking soda or eating processed foods with added sugar. Sorry I get your point, but I'm not convinced that the source of fructose makes no difference for that simple reason.
So it really all boils down to moderation then? I can eat some fruit and consume X amount of grams of sugar or I could drink a soda and consume the same amount. The source is not the issue, it's people's inability to control how much they eat.
Yeah but if people were capable of exercising moderation, they wouldn't be on a diet or need a lifestyle change to begin with. If someone is currently overweight and needs to make a dietary change, the dumbest thing they can do is reduce fruit intake so that they can get their sugar from processed foods or soda. The fruit will give them more nutrients and be more satiating. Not to say they should never eat foods with added sugar, but it should be eaten sparingly. So my definition of moderation is probably lower than yours.0 -
I didn't watch it, but I've already cut back my added sugar intake. I'd give it up entirely, but I just have to have my ranch dressing for salads.
my ranch dressing doesn't have sugar.....0 -
This is a copout argument, though. See, the human body doesn't differentiate between added cane sugar or fruit sugar. It just sees sugar, and processes it just like sugar. There's no difference. If you eat an apple, you get some fiber, some sugar, and some vitamins. If I eat a multivitamin, a spoonful of sugar, and a few fiber tablets, I get the same nutrition, and the body will handle both in the same way. Now I certainly agree that getting nutrition from whole foods is preferable to supplementing whenever possible, but my point is valid. It really doesn't make a difference to your body what you decide to arbitrarily "count" or not when it comes to your food choices, it doesn't change the basic biology of how your body works. Sugar is sugar, and as long as you aren't eating excessive amounts, the source doesn't matter, as your body processes it the same way, and uses it for the same purpose: fuel.A few bananas and a couple apples and I can very easily exceed 100 grams of sugar in a day, which is generally the upper limit for sugar consumption. It really doesn't make a difference if you eat too much sugar from a can of soda or from fruit, too much sugar is too much sugar. If it's bad for you, than it's always bad for you. You can't say it's bad when you want it to be bad, and not bad when you don't want it to be bad. HFCS, Sucrose, sugars from fruit, are all molecularly the same, and processed in the same way by the body.
Agree! This is one of the smartest posts I have read. Like I commented before I keep under my dail sugar allowance (I believe I have it set at 30) 90% of the time. If I don't, I don't lose weight. I keep it under for fruits, veggies, AND added sugars. I don't eat a lot of fruit with high sugar content (pineapple, bananas, apples), but when I do, I make sure that it fits into my micros for the day. If it doesn't I don't have it. Same with ice cream. If it doesn't fit, I'm not eating it (well, 90% of the time lol). And it is NOT in the least bit difficult to do.0 -
This is a copout argument, though. See, the human body doesn't differentiate between added cane sugar or fruit sugar. It just sees sugar, and processes it just like sugar. There's no difference. If you eat an apple, you get some fiber, some sugar, and some vitamins. If I eat a multivitamin, a spoonful of sugar, and a few fiber tablets, I get the same nutrition, and the body will handle both in the same way. Now I certainly agree that getting nutrition from whole foods is preferable to supplementing whenever possible, but my point is valid. It really doesn't make a difference to your body what you decide to arbitrarily "count" or not when it comes to your food choices, it doesn't change the basic biology of how your body works. Sugar is sugar, and as long as you aren't eating excessive amounts, the source doesn't matter, as your body processes it the same way, and uses it for the same purpose: fuel.A few bananas and a couple apples and I can very easily exceed 100 grams of sugar in a day, which is generally the upper limit for sugar consumption. It really doesn't make a difference if you eat too much sugar from a can of soda or from fruit, too much sugar is too much sugar. If it's bad for you, than it's always bad for you. You can't say it's bad when you want it to be bad, and not bad when you don't want it to be bad. HFCS, Sucrose, sugars from fruit, are all molecularly the same, and processed in the same way by the body.
Agree! This is one of the smartest posts I have read. Like I commented before I keep under my dail sugar allowance (I believe I have it set at 30) 90% of the time. If I don't, I don't lose weight. I keep it under for fruits, veggies, AND added sugars. I don't eat a lot of fruit with high sugar content (pineapple, bananas, apples), but when I do, I make sure that it fits into my micros for the day. If it doesn't I don't have it. Same with ice cream. If it doesn't fit, I'm not eating it (well, 90% of the time lol). And it is NOT in the least bit difficult to do.
I agree with this post and the previous one quoted.
At this point, I am just trying to give up the white stuff - trying to eat less sweets with added sugar. I've noticed that it has a strong effect on my mood and energy levels.
At some point, I will be addressing the fructose in my fruit. Right now, I'm just being mindful of the "Five-A-Day" and not counting fruit as one of the five. IMO, the five should be mostly green, leafy vegetables, and then some yellow/not-green veggies... I don't consider five servings of fruit an adequate substitute for eating cabbage, leeks, broccoli, and carrots.
I do think bananas make an excellent pre-workout snack. This morning I ate a banana, a half cup of strawberries, and some skim milk just before burning 400 calories on a hill climb. I'm not entirely sure, but I think I burned it off without stressing my pancreas too much.
Anyway, I think sometimes people get stressed when they contemplate all the things they're expected to give up - the confusing array of "good" and "bad" fats, the different kinds of sugar, the sodium, and what about gluten?...it can make them want to tune out. If someone is on here counting calories and exercising more, that's a great start.
Someday, I may address sodium. Not now, though. I put MSG- and salt- laden seasoning on my cabbage and broccoli to make it tasty. I may someday be one of those people who eats almost no sugars and never adds sodium to anything... but right now I think it's enough that I'm eating a lot of veggies, watching my calorie intake, and getting a lot of exercise.0 -
I thought the report was a little "alarmist". This guy has produced some questionable studies in the past. When I started my weight loss quest, I cut WAY back on sugar and will try to maintain that after I meet my goals. It's just a good idea not to load up on sugar, whether or not you are chunky or thin. Oh, and his recommendation of not eating more than 100 added sugar calories per day; nobody could meet that requirement, so I guess we will all meet an agonizing death from that last stick of gum.
Agreed.
I usually max out around 80, and most of the sugar come from fruit. I guess "nobody" can meet that requirement.0 -
I was putting heap fulls of sugar in my coffee every morning. Now I use stevia, or if I want a real treat, a dab of honey (tastes great in coffee!). I feel a huge intake of sugar is not that great for ya, and I speak from personal experience only. I stick to natural sugars that come from fruit. :drinker:0
-
HAHA! I've been reading a lot of the comments here. I keep seeing things like, "sugar is fine in moderation," "everything is bad for you if you eat enough of it" or "I shouldn't have to give up my sugar - a little bit is fine." I would agree with that, but most people aren't consuming sugar in moderation. Hardly anyone is eating a "little bit" of sugar. If you are eating processed food, you are eating tons of sugar, plus all that other crap. I try to avoid as much processed junk as possible - I make most of my meals from scratch, and I admit that I still eat too much sugar. I don't think this segment is going to change too many minds, because sugar is so fundamental in our diets and people are so jaded by media reports. I think it would be nice if it encouraged people to try to cut back a little, though. :flowerforyou:
Thank you. Let's define moderation here and figure out how that might impact the typical MFP member's diet.
Personally, moderation is limiting the added sugar outside of natural sources such as fruit and vegetables... at least with the fruits and vegetables you have other nutrients that help break down the sugar to be used in a more healthy way... of course eating all fruits and nothing else isn't good for you, but consuming the sugars from a banana or an orange is better for you than consuming the sugars in a candy bar or a soda... But unless you eat "clean" (and by clean I mean no or select processed foods) you are going to be consuming way more sugar than you should be.. and it's not from fruits and vegetables... it's from all the canned and packaged stuff. Usually, when there is sugar in the pre-packaged stuff, there is large amounts of salt as well... and the low fat stuff... it's loaded with sugar... and I have heard registered dieticians (one is also a doctor that specializes in childhood obesity and preventing it) tell people that if they are going to eat things like dressing to eat the low fat versions.... :indifferent:0 -
This is a copout argument, though. See, the human body doesn't differentiate between added cane sugar or fruit sugar. It just sees sugar, and processes it just like sugar. There's no difference. If you eat an apple, you get some fiber, some sugar, and some vitamins. If I eat a multivitamin, a spoonful of sugar, and a few fiber tablets, I get the same nutrition, and the body will handle both in the same way. Now I certainly agree that getting nutrition from whole foods is preferable to supplementing whenever possible, but my point is valid. It really doesn't make a difference to your body what you decide to arbitrarily "count" or not when it comes to your food choices, it doesn't change the basic biology of how your body works. Sugar is sugar, and as long as you aren't eating excessive amounts, the source doesn't matter, as your body processes it the same way, and uses it for the same purpose: fuel.I didn't see this, but was wondering 'out loud' to you fine people how to keep my sugar below the recommended 25 gms ....which still seems rather low especially if we are to eat a few pieces of fruit daily..in addition to beans...and perhaps a sweet potato???
:ohwell:
The sugar they were concerned with in this particular segment was added sugar, not sugars naturally occuring in real food.
Like I said in the original post, I don't count my fruit or anything like that against my sugar count.
That's not entirely true. Fructose goes straight to the liver, where it's processed into glycogen, fatty acids, and triglycerides, while Glucose gets processed into pyruvate through glycolysis. Fructose doesn't affect blood sugar levels the same way Glucose does. Lactose, sucrose, and the other disaccharides and complex carbohydrates get broken down into the component monosccharides.0 -
And? You get sucrose, glucose, fructose, and galactose from fruit, as well as from cane sugar. The source is irrelevant, because the body processes glucose, fructose, lactose, galactose, sucrose, etc in the exact same way, regardless of what you ate to put it there. It doesn't process fructose differently because you ate fruit instead of a cookie.
This is a copout argument, though. See, the human body doesn't differentiate between added cane sugar or fruit sugar. It just sees sugar, and processes it just like sugar. There's no difference. If you eat an apple, you get some fiber, some sugar, and some vitamins. If I eat a multivitamin, a spoonful of sugar, and a few fiber tablets, I get the same nutrition, and the body will handle both in the same way. Now I certainly agree that getting nutrition from whole foods is preferable to supplementing whenever possible, but my point is valid. It really doesn't make a difference to your body what you decide to arbitrarily "count" or not when it comes to your food choices, it doesn't change the basic biology of how your body works. Sugar is sugar, and as long as you aren't eating excessive amounts, the source doesn't matter, as your body processes it the same way, and uses it for the same purpose: fuel.I didn't see this, but was wondering 'out loud' to you fine people how to keep my sugar below the recommended 25 gms ....which still seems rather low especially if we are to eat a few pieces of fruit daily..in addition to beans...and perhaps a sweet potato???
:ohwell:
The sugar they were concerned with in this particular segment was added sugar, not sugars naturally occuring in real food.
Like I said in the original post, I don't count my fruit or anything like that against my sugar count.
That's not entirely true. Fructose goes straight to the liver, where it's processed into glycogen, fatty acids, and triglycerides, while Glucose gets processed into pyruvate through glycolysis. Fructose doesn't affect blood sugar levels the same way Glucose does. Lactose, sucrose, and the other disaccharides and complex carbohydrates get broken down into the component monosccharides.0 -
...we definitely try to keep sugar to minimum in my family. But a life without ice cream is just pointless!
Agreed! 0 -
Didn't see it. I'm watching it on youtube now. I'm working on cutting back the sugar for our family, though. My kids get excited about grapes and carrots for a snack. (Yes, I know grapes have sugar. Oh well). It has to be an improvement.0
-
i watched it, but eh, this guy seems a little looney to me. first off, he said "diabetes heart disease and DEATH have gotten worse" that alone turned me off and he sounds like a tool. second, saying sugar should be regulated like tobaco and alcohol, double turn off. this guy is a tool IMO. i dont want anyone telling me what to eat esp. the government. who the h-e-double hockey sticks is he to say they should regulate sugar???0
-
i watched it, but eh, this guy seems a little looney to me. first off, he said "diabetes heart disease and DEATH have gotten worse" that alone turned me off and he sounds like a tool. second, saying sugar should be regulated like tobaco and alcohol, double turn off. this guy is a tool IMO. i dont want anyone telling me what to eat esp. the government. who the h-e-double hockey sticks is he to say they should regulate sugar???
:drinker:0 -
And? You get sucrose, glucose, fructose, and galactose from fruit, as well as from cane sugar. The source is irrelevant, because the body processes glucose, fructose, lactose, galactose, sucrose, etc in the exact same way, regardless of what you ate to put it there. It doesn't process fructose differently because you ate fruit instead of a cookie.
This is a copout argument, though. See, the human body doesn't differentiate between added cane sugar or fruit sugar. It just sees sugar, and processes it just like sugar. There's no difference. If you eat an apple, you get some fiber, some sugar, and some vitamins. If I eat a multivitamin, a spoonful of sugar, and a few fiber tablets, I get the same nutrition, and the body will handle both in the same way. Now I certainly agree that getting nutrition from whole foods is preferable to supplementing whenever possible, but my point is valid. It really doesn't make a difference to your body what you decide to arbitrarily "count" or not when it comes to your food choices, it doesn't change the basic biology of how your body works. Sugar is sugar, and as long as you aren't eating excessive amounts, the source doesn't matter, as your body processes it the same way, and uses it for the same purpose: fuel.I didn't see this, but was wondering 'out loud' to you fine people how to keep my sugar below the recommended 25 gms ....which still seems rather low especially if we are to eat a few pieces of fruit daily..in addition to beans...and perhaps a sweet potato???
:ohwell:
The sugar they were concerned with in this particular segment was added sugar, not sugars naturally occuring in real food.
Like I said in the original post, I don't count my fruit or anything like that against my sugar count.
That's not entirely true. Fructose goes straight to the liver, where it's processed into glycogen, fatty acids, and triglycerides, while Glucose gets processed into pyruvate through glycolysis. Fructose doesn't affect blood sugar levels the same way Glucose does. Lactose, sucrose, and the other disaccharides and complex carbohydrates get broken down into the component monosccharides.
While I get the idea that sugar is sugar... I just don't understand it completely... the "ingredients" in fruit (besides the sugar) are different than in a cookie... wouldn't then the different ingredients act and react differently once your body is breaking them down? And isn't the ratio of fructose to glucose different in fruit than it is in table sugar? Wouldn't that make a difference as well... I think the whole idea that "sugar is sugar" is too simplistic and very closely resembles the corn industries argument for HFCS...
I know for myself personally, and I'm using a soda for an example here, that when I drink a soda with cane sugar or beet sugar I don't "feel the need" to drink more and I can drink an 8 or 12 oz can and be done for quite sometime... unlike with HFCS where I crave more...0 -
i watched it, but eh, this guy seems a little looney to me. first off, he said "diabetes heart disease and DEATH have gotten worse" that alone turned me off and he sounds like a tool. second, saying sugar should be regulated like tobaco and alcohol, double turn off. this guy is a tool IMO. i dont want anyone telling me what to eat esp. the government. who the h-e-double hockey sticks is he to say they should regulate sugar???
:drinker:
lol it ticks me off that everything needs to be "regulated" if a bunch of idiots want to eat nothing but sugar WHO CARES??!?!! if a bunch of idiots eat nothing but animal lard, WHO CARES?!?! dont tell ME what to do with my food. i HATE that!!!!!!!!! and because some doctor makes a statement for shock value "GASP SUGAR IS TOXIC!!!" not what? there will be some group or whatever pushing for more regulation. get outta here. same thing with the "meat will give you cancer" shock. i swear if they implment some "Fat tax" or something on meat i will start burning things to the ground!!!!! lol jk.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions