SUGAR IS EVERY DAMN WHERE!!!

lulu386

Now that I'm trying to "watch" my sugars, I average about 80 - 100 grams a day. It's ridiculous. I blow my MFP limit by the time I finish breakfast. I drink kefir, I eat yogurt, I eat fruit and I indulge in sweets sometimes. I know that people say that sugar is sugar and it doesn't matter what the source is, but I try to subtract out the fruit and dairy sugars and only count the refined sugar from sweets to figure out if I'm truly "over the limit".

Ditto.

PANZERIA

I KNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWW!!!!

They should really separate processed sugars from natural sugars. There's a massive difference. =(

kayemme

You realize that organic farming uses insecticides and pesticides too, right? From the article that you didn't bother to read:

it does, yes, but often on small-scale organic farming practices, pesticides are used as a last effort, not as part of the practice.

edit; i grow a good portion of my own food organically. the only pesticide i have ever used was one i made myself consisting of garlic & peppers boiled in some water. mostly i let the bugs feast unless they're damaging the plants. they provide nutrients for other bugs that benefit the garden in general.

the other pesticide i use is my own hands. i squish bugs that kill plants with my fingers.

tigersword

I KNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWW!!!!

They should really separate processed sugars from natural sugars. There's a massive difference. =(

JustinM86

Call it whatever you want, at the root all the information being given out here, lies reality.

And the reality is that HCFS is no different than regular sugar, and that organic foods are no more nutritious than non-organic.

On the basis of a systematic review of studies of satisfactory quality, there is no evidence of a difference in nutrient quality between organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs. The small differences in nutrient content detected are biologically plausible and mostly relate to differences in production methods.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/is-organic-food-more-healthful/

But that doesn't "feel" right to you so you continue to stick your head in the sand and shift your argument when shown otherwise.

So you're ok with your produce being doused with insecticides and pesticides? Good for you. The abundant use of antibiotics does pose a real potential issue, but whatever, we'll cross that bridge when we get there, right? My point is not solely rooted in Organic VS. Conventional. Natural VS Processed...There is no contest. Have yourself an Oreo, you should be proud of yourself.

You realize that organic farming uses insecticides and pesticides too, right? From the article that you didn't bother to read:

The third issue with organic food is what is not in, or on them – pesticides, hormones and antibiotics. Here, again, we can take the same two approaches as with nutrition: Is there any evidence of a difference between organic and conventional produce, and is there evidence for a health benefit? There seems to be a consensus on the first question. There are lower levels of synthetic pesticides in organic produce and lower levels of hormones and antibiotics in organic meat than in conventionally grown equivalents. But is this safer for health? The review cited above is also relevant to this question, and essentially there is no evidence for greater safety of organic food over conventional food.

With regard to pesticides, it must also be noted that organic farming, while using methods to minimize pests and the need for pesticides, still uses organic, rather than synthetic, pesticides. For example a rotenone-pyrethrin mixture is commonly used. Such pesticides are not as well studied as synthetic pesticides, often require more applications, and may persist longer in the soil. In fact the use of “natural” pesticides is nothing more than an appeal to the naturalistic fallacy – there really is no evidence for superior safety, and they have not been adequately studied.

Also:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxE9sYatPAs

Now who's "Shifting the goalposts"? Good job, I like what you did there.

Do you even grasp what "shifting the goalposts" means? I doubt it.

I was directly refuting YOUR claim that organic food is inherently healthier. How, pray tell, does this equate to shifting the goalposts?

The origin of the post deals with sugar. Then HFCS vs Sugars, then Natural VS Processed. Now you're getting into the details of organic vs conventional... As I said before, Organic VS conventional doesn't bother me. Natural VS Processed is what bothers me.

There are things that are good for you, and things that aren't. Can you honestly tell me you'd rather eat a Snickers Bar instead of some Walnuts, or Whole milk? Does the essay-length list of ingredients in a Snickers Bar not deter you? There's a reason why I'm capable of doing what I do physically. I eat well. You think the US Olympic team is being fed McDonalds, or is drinking soda because it falls within their Macro-nutrient range? Doubtful...

kmm7309

Mine averages at 45 grams a day, not bad. If you are worried about all of your sugar, replace your fruits with vegetables. Add me if you want to see my food diary.

LesterBlackstone

Call it whatever you want, at the root all the information being given out here, lies reality.

And the reality is that HCFS is no different than regular sugar, and that organic foods are no more nutritious than non-organic.

On the basis of a systematic review of studies of satisfactory quality, there is no evidence of a difference in nutrient quality between organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs. The small differences in nutrient content detected are biologically plausible and mostly relate to differences in production methods.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/is-organic-food-more-healthful/

But that doesn't "feel" right to you so you continue to stick your head in the sand and shift your argument when shown otherwise.

So you're ok with your produce being doused with insecticides and pesticides? Good for you. The abundant use of antibiotics does pose a real potential issue, but whatever, we'll cross that bridge when we get there, right? My point is not solely rooted in Organic VS. Conventional. Natural VS Processed...There is no contest. Have yourself an Oreo, you should be proud of yourself.

You realize that organic farming uses insecticides and pesticides too, right? From the article that you didn't bother to read:

The third issue with organic food is what is not in, or on them – pesticides, hormones and antibiotics. Here, again, we can take the same two approaches as with nutrition: Is there any evidence of a difference between organic and conventional produce, and is there evidence for a health benefit? There seems to be a consensus on the first question. There are lower levels of synthetic pesticides in organic produce and lower levels of hormones and antibiotics in organic meat than in conventionally grown equivalents. But is this safer for health? The review cited above is also relevant to this question, and essentially there is no evidence for greater safety of organic food over conventional food.

With regard to pesticides, it must also be noted that organic farming, while using methods to minimize pests and the need for pesticides, still uses organic, rather than synthetic, pesticides. For example a rotenone-pyrethrin mixture is commonly used. Such pesticides are not as well studied as synthetic pesticides, often require more applications, and may persist longer in the soil. In fact the use of “natural” pesticides is nothing more than an appeal to the naturalistic fallacy – there really is no evidence for superior safety, and they have not been adequately studied.

Also:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxE9sYatPAs

Now who's "Shifting the goalposts"? Good job, I like what you did there.

Do you even grasp what "shifting the goalposts" means? I doubt it.

I was directly refuting YOUR claim that organic food is inherently healthier. How, pray tell, does this equate to shifting the goalposts?

The origin of the post deals with sugar. Then HFCS vs Sugars, then Natural VS Processed. Now you're getting into the details of organic vs conventional... As I said before, Organic VS conventional doesn't bother me. Natural VS Processed is what bothers me.

There are things that are good for you, and things that aren't. Can you honestly tell me you'd rather eat a Snickers Bar instead of some Walnuts, or Whole milk? Does the essay-length list of ingredients in a Snickers Bar not deter you? There's a reason why I'm capable of doing what I do physically. I eat well. You think the US Olympic team is being fed McDonalds, or is drinking soda because it falls within their Macro-nutrient range? Doubtful...

Two words: Michael Phelps.

JustinM86

Two words: Michael Phelps.

Were you referencing this? http://www.michaelphelps.net/michael-phelps-diet/

Aw, that's cute. Know what's funny. I eat 10-12 whole eggs a day on average. Why can I do this? Because of the way I exercise. Michael Phelps swims miles everyday. The average person, does not. Same goes for other Olympic Athletes. Aside from the pasta, bread, and other carbohydrates - he mainly sticks to whole foods. Carbohydrates are fuel, and he happens to need a lot of it. I don't see any Happy Meals in there. Shocker...

Acg67

Call it whatever you want, at the root all the information being given out here, lies reality.

And the reality is that HCFS is no different than regular sugar, and that organic foods are no more nutritious than non-organic.

On the basis of a systematic review of studies of satisfactory quality, there is no evidence of a difference in nutrient quality between organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs. The small differences in nutrient content detected are biologically plausible and mostly relate to differences in production methods.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/is-organic-food-more-healthful/

But that doesn't "feel" right to you so you continue to stick your head in the sand and shift your argument when shown otherwise.

So you're ok with your produce being doused with insecticides and pesticides? Good for you. The abundant use of antibiotics does pose a real potential issue, but whatever, we'll cross that bridge when we get there, right? My point is not solely rooted in Organic VS. Conventional. Natural VS Processed...There is no contest. Have yourself an Oreo, you should be proud of yourself.

You realize that organic farming uses insecticides and pesticides too, right? From the article that you didn't bother to read:

The third issue with organic food is what is not in, or on them – pesticides, hormones and antibiotics. Here, again, we can take the same two approaches as with nutrition: Is there any evidence of a difference between organic and conventional produce, and is there evidence for a health benefit? There seems to be a consensus on the first question. There are lower levels of synthetic pesticides in organic produce and lower levels of hormones and antibiotics in organic meat than in conventionally grown equivalents. But is this safer for health? The review cited above is also relevant to this question, and essentially there is no evidence for greater safety of organic food over conventional food.

With regard to pesticides, it must also be noted that organic farming, while using methods to minimize pests and the need for pesticides, still uses organic, rather than synthetic, pesticides. For example a rotenone-pyrethrin mixture is commonly used. Such pesticides are not as well studied as synthetic pesticides, often require more applications, and may persist longer in the soil. In fact the use of “natural” pesticides is nothing more than an appeal to the naturalistic fallacy – there really is no evidence for superior safety, and they have not been adequately studied.

Also:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxE9sYatPAs

Now who's "Shifting the goalposts"? Good job, I like what you did there.

Do you even grasp what "shifting the goalposts" means? I doubt it.

I was directly refuting YOUR claim that organic food is inherently healthier. How, pray tell, does this equate to shifting the goalposts?

The origin of the post deals with sugar. Then HFCS vs Sugars, then Natural VS Processed. Now you're getting into the details of organic vs conventional... As I said before, Organic VS conventional doesn't bother me. Natural VS Processed is what bothers me.

There are things that are good for you, and things that aren't. Can you honestly tell me you'd rather eat a Snickers Bar instead of some Walnuts, or Whole milk? Does the essay-length list of ingredients in a Snickers Bar not deter you? There's a reason why I'm capable of doing what I do physically. I eat well. You think the US Olympic team is being fed McDonalds, or is drinking soda because it falls within their Macro-nutrient range? Doubtful...

Can you substantiate that body composition or athletic performance would significantly differ between two identical diets in cals and macros, but differed in the types of foods in the diets?

Squeezalsize10

I don't count sugar in fruits. Your body processes those different. I try to watch refined sugars.

Yes i agree with that.

tigersword

Call it whatever you want, at the root all the information being given out here, lies reality.

And the reality is that HCFS is no different than regular sugar, and that organic foods are no more nutritious than non-organic.

On the basis of a systematic review of studies of satisfactory quality, there is no evidence of a difference in nutrient quality between organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs. The small differences in nutrient content detected are biologically plausible and mostly relate to differences in production methods.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/is-organic-food-more-healthful/

But that doesn't "feel" right to you so you continue to stick your head in the sand and shift your argument when shown otherwise.

So you're ok with your produce being doused with insecticides and pesticides? Good for you. The abundant use of antibiotics does pose a real potential issue, but whatever, we'll cross that bridge when we get there, right? My point is not solely rooted in Organic VS. Conventional. Natural VS Processed...There is no contest. Have yourself an Oreo, you should be proud of yourself.

You realize that organic farming uses insecticides and pesticides too, right? From the article that you didn't bother to read:

The third issue with organic food is what is not in, or on them – pesticides, hormones and antibiotics. Here, again, we can take the same two approaches as with nutrition: Is there any evidence of a difference between organic and conventional produce, and is there evidence for a health benefit? There seems to be a consensus on the first question. There are lower levels of synthetic pesticides in organic produce and lower levels of hormones and antibiotics in organic meat than in conventionally grown equivalents. But is this safer for health? The review cited above is also relevant to this question, and essentially there is no evidence for greater safety of organic food over conventional food.

With regard to pesticides, it must also be noted that organic farming, while using methods to minimize pests and the need for pesticides, still uses organic, rather than synthetic, pesticides. For example a rotenone-pyrethrin mixture is commonly used. Such pesticides are not as well studied as synthetic pesticides, often require more applications, and may persist longer in the soil. In fact the use of “natural” pesticides is nothing more than an appeal to the naturalistic fallacy – there really is no evidence for superior safety, and they have not been adequately studied.

Also:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxE9sYatPAs

Now who's "Shifting the goalposts"? Good job, I like what you did there.

Do you even grasp what "shifting the goalposts" means? I doubt it.

I was directly refuting YOUR claim that organic food is inherently healthier. How, pray tell, does this equate to shifting the goalposts?

The origin of the post deals with sugar. Then HFCS vs Sugars, then Natural VS Processed. Now you're getting into the details of organic vs conventional... As I said before, Organic VS conventional doesn't bother me. Natural VS Processed is what bothers me.

There are things that are good for you, and things that aren't. Can you honestly tell me you'd rather eat a Snickers Bar instead of some Walnuts, or Whole milk? Does the essay-length list of ingredients in a Snickers Bar not deter you? There's a reason why I'm capable of doing what I do physically. I eat well. You think the US Olympic team is being fed McDonalds, or is drinking soda because it falls within their Macro-nutrient range? Doubtful...

Essay length list of ingredients in a Snickers Bar? It has a dozen ingredients, including egg whites, lactose, salt, skim milk, peanuts, and milk chocolate. Yeah, full of some terrible stuff all right. Oh, and it actually has sugar, not HFCS. Stop making uninformed, exaggerated false claims. That's called fear mongering, trying to scare people by making things sound worse than they are. Just stick to facts.

JustinM86

Can you substantiate that body composition or athletic performance would significantly differ between two identical diets in cals and macros, but differed in the types of foods in the diets?

http://bmb.oxfordjournals.org/content/55/3/683.full.pdf

The next time I get a group of individuals that are willing to do a double blind study, I'll let you know asap. Being concerned only with macros and calories and not with vitamin and mineral content? Really? You honestly think there would be no difference in body composition or athletic performance? B-Vitamins, Iron (especially for females), calcium for muscle contraction. The list goes on and on. My worry would be that in order to obtain optimal amounts of these micro nutrients, you'd have to go beyond the macro range while consuming processed foods. So no, I wouldn't consider processed foods to be any better in that regard either. There's still quality to consider, even with the vitamin and mineral content. Where they're derived from, ect.

JustinM86

Essay length list of ingredients in a Snickers Bar? It has a dozen ingredients, including egg whites, lactose, salt, skim milk, peanuts, and milk chocolate. Yeah, full of some terrible stuff all right. Oh, and it actually has sugar, not HFCS. Stop making uninformed, exaggerated false claims. That's called fear mongering, trying to scare people by making things sound worse than they are. Just stick to facts.

Snickers Bar:

"Milk chocolate (sugar, cocoa butter, chocolate, lactose, skim milk, milkfat, soy lecithin, artifiical flavor), peanuts, corn syrup, sugar, skim milk, butter, milkfat, partially hydrogenated soybean oil, lactose, salt, egg whites, artificial flavor."

So, corn syrup and trans fat. Yup, healthy...

Whole Milk:

"Whole milk, vitamin D and Vitamin D3 added"

Both contain protein, carbohydrates, fat and sugar. Which one is better for you? It's no rocket science.

LesterBlackstone

Yaay., let's add "false-dichotomy" to the list of logical fallacies. Because, as we all know, you have to consume either fruit or Snickers bars. Nobody could possibly consume both --- that would just be silly.

Especially Olympic athletes with high caloric needs -- no room in THAT diet for any discretionary calories.

Sidesteal

Yaay., let's add "false-dichotomy" to the list of logical fallacies. Because, as we all know, you have to consume either fruit or Snickers bars. Nobody could possibly consume both --- that would just be silly.

Especially Olympic athletes with high caloric needs -- no room in THAT diet for any discretionary calories.

^ This.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/excluding-the-middle.html

taso42

my solution was to remove the sugar column from my diary. i don't distinguish between "sugar" and "carbohydrates".

Sidesteal

my solution was to remove the sugar column from my diary. i don't distinguish between "sugar" and "carbohydrates".

^ I do the same.

agentscully514

I KNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWW!!!!

They should really separate processed sugars from natural sugars. There's a massive difference. =(

No, there really isn't.

mstpoynter

I agree!!! It is everywhere. Sugar is my weakness. I did the Atkins diet before and was extremely sucessfull, but it required me to eliminate sugar completely. Although it was difficult, I did it and lost 25 lbs in 2 months which was 2 yrs ago. Since then, I've tried multiple diets, but none keep my attention longer than 2-3 weeks because of limitations. This time, I did the Atkins for 2 weeks to get in the habit of watching my sweets/carb intake. I eliminated sweets and now I'm working them in very slowly. I've lost 8 lbs in the last month....

IronPlayground

33 grams of sugar is supposed to be my limit according to MFP, I take in over 100 grams of sugar and I feel like I'm eating pretty well! What are you guys getting in one day for sugar intake!!! I feel like that's what I need to eliminate to shrink my belly, but SUGAR'S EVERY DAMN WHERE!!!!

I don't track it. Sugar is a carb, I track carbs.

Unless you have a medical condition where you need to control sugar intake, it really isn't necessary to track.