Sugar-Free, Low-Fat, Fat-Free
Replies
-
i think of abdominal cramping, distention, and diarrhea.0
-
Determining if an ingredient is "good" or "bad" based off your own intellect and ability to pronounce words is a pretty crappy way to determine it.
Is it a perfect approach? No. A "crappy" aproach? Really? Let's use oatmeal as an example.
If I compare the ingredients list of the two oatmeals below, wouldn't common sense tell you that the one with the shorter and simpler ingredients list is likely better for you? Clearly we are talking generalities, but it seems like a pretty common sense and not entirely "crappy" approach:
Quaker Oats - Old Fashioned:
Ingredients: 100% NATURAL WHOLE GRAIN QUAKER QUALITY ROLLED OATS
Quaker Weight Control Instant Oatmeal
Ingredients: WHOLE GRAIN ROLLED OATS, WHEY PROTEIN ISOLATE, MALTODEXTRIN, NATURAL AND ARTIFICIAL FLAVOR, SALT, OAT FLOUR, CALCIUM CARBONATE, GUAR GUM, CARAMEL COLOR, SOY LECITHIN, ACESULFAME POTASSIUM, SUCRALOSE, NIACINAMIDE*, REDUCED IRON, VITAMIN A PALMITATE, PYRIDOXINE HYDROCHLORIDE*, RIBOFLAVIN*, THIAMIN MONONITRATE*, FOLIC ACID*.
The 2nd one has more vitamins and minerals in it...
Bioavailability.
Let's look at just one of the additives acesulfame potassium:
"...Many activists argue that the studies supporting acesulfame K's safety are unreliable. The Center for Science in the Public Interest, a nonprofit health advocacy group, leads the campaign for more research on acesulfame K. They point out that the FDA based is recommendations on several studies conducted in the 1970s, two of which were inconclusive. A third showed that female rats fed acesulfame K were twice as likely to develop breast tumors as those who did not consume the sweetener. CSPI has repeatedly asked the FDA to order more research on the long-term effects of acesulfame K, but as of this writing, no studies are planned..."
Another concern about acesulfame K's safety concerns methyline chloride, used in the manufature of acesulfame potassium:
"...Methylene chloride is used as a solvent in the manufacturing of acesulfame K. In other industries, methylene chloride is most often used as a paint stripper, a degreaser and as a propellant agent. It has applications in the food industry, such as decaffeinating coffee and tea, [coffee is mostly decaffeinated now using the Swiss water process] but concerns about its safety have led manufacturers to seek alternatives. Long-term exposure to this chemical may cause headaches, depression, mental confusion, liver and kidney complications, nausea, vision issues and cancer..."0 -
Determining if an ingredient is "good" or "bad" based off your own intellect and ability to pronounce words is a pretty crappy way to determine it.
Is it a perfect approach? No. A "crappy" aproach? Really? Let's use oatmeal as an example.
If I compare the ingredients list of the two oatmeals below, wouldn't common sense tell you that the one with the shorter and simpler ingredients list is likely better for you? Clearly we are talking generalities, but it seems like a pretty common sense and not entirely "crappy" approach:
Quaker Oats - Old Fashioned:
Ingredients: 100% NATURAL WHOLE GRAIN QUAKER QUALITY ROLLED OATS
Quaker Weight Control Instant Oatmeal
Ingredients: WHOLE GRAIN ROLLED OATS, WHEY PROTEIN ISOLATE, MALTODEXTRIN, NATURAL AND ARTIFICIAL FLAVOR, SALT, OAT FLOUR, CALCIUM CARBONATE, GUAR GUM, CARAMEL COLOR, SOY LECITHIN, ACESULFAME POTASSIUM, SUCRALOSE, NIACINAMIDE*, REDUCED IRON, VITAMIN A PALMITATE, PYRIDOXINE HYDROCHLORIDE*, RIBOFLAVIN*, THIAMIN MONONITRATE*, FOLIC ACID*.
The 2nd one has more vitamins and minerals in it...
So you are saying the 2nd one is better for me? I should eat that one rather than the old-fashioned kind? I just want to make sure I'm hearing you correctly.
So we get it. You are clearly more educated on nutrition than 99% of posters here. I guess I was trying to make a point for Jane Average Poster who can't figure out why she isn't losing weight when she is eating low-fat wheat thins, sugar-free pudding, and 4 diet cokes everyday. Clearly I'm wrong in doing so.0 -
I find this stuff has a place in my diet. Do I go crazy on fat free, sugar free though? No. As long as I make sure to eat a lot of "whole" foods too, I try to strike a balance there somewhere.0
-
So you are saying the 2nd one is better for me? I should eat that one rather than the old-fashioned kind? I just want to make sure I'm hearing you correctly.
So we get it. You are clearly more educated on nutrition than 99% of posters here. I guess I was trying to make a point for Jane Average Poster who can't figure out why she isn't losing weight when she is eating low-fat wheat thins, sugar-free pudding, and 4 diet cokes everyday. Clearly I'm wrong in doing so.
at first i thought it was a joke but clearly you do not understand the law of thermodynamics0 -
Determining if an ingredient is "good" or "bad" based off your own intellect and ability to pronounce words is a pretty crappy way to determine it.
Is it a perfect approach? No. A "crappy" aproach? Really? Let's use oatmeal as an example.
If I compare the ingredients list of the two oatmeals below, wouldn't common sense tell you that the one with the shorter and simpler ingredients list is likely better for you? Clearly we are talking generalities, but it seems like a pretty common sense and not entirely "crappy" approach:
Quaker Oats - Old Fashioned:
Ingredients: 100% NATURAL WHOLE GRAIN QUAKER QUALITY ROLLED OATS
Quaker Weight Control Instant Oatmeal
Ingredients: WHOLE GRAIN ROLLED OATS, WHEY PROTEIN ISOLATE, MALTODEXTRIN, NATURAL AND ARTIFICIAL FLAVOR, SALT, OAT FLOUR, CALCIUM CARBONATE, GUAR GUM, CARAMEL COLOR, SOY LECITHIN, ACESULFAME POTASSIUM, SUCRALOSE, NIACINAMIDE*, REDUCED IRON, VITAMIN A PALMITATE, PYRIDOXINE HYDROCHLORIDE*, RIBOFLAVIN*, THIAMIN MONONITRATE*, FOLIC ACID*.
The 2nd one has more vitamins and minerals in it...
So you are saying the 2nd one is better for me? I should eat that one rather than the old-fashioned kind? I just want to make sure I'm hearing you correctly.
So we get it. You are clearly more educated on nutrition than 99% of posters here. I guess I was trying to make a point for Jane Average Poster who can't figure out why she isn't losing weight when she is eating low-fat wheat thins, sugar-free pudding, and 4 diet cokes everyday. Clearly I'm wrong in doing so.
If you lack a micronutrient dense diet, then the 2nd one would provide you with more micros. You seem t have glossed over the part about context and dosage.
Are you trying to say there are nefarious compounds in low fat wheat thins, sugar free pudding and diet soda that makes one unable to lose weight? Just want to make sure I'm hearing you correctly0 -
Determining if an ingredient is "good" or "bad" based off your own intellect and ability to pronounce words is a pretty crappy way to determine it.
Is it a perfect approach? No. A "crappy" aproach? Really? Let's use oatmeal as an example.
If I compare the ingredients list of the two oatmeals below, wouldn't common sense tell you that the one with the shorter and simpler ingredients list is likely better for you? Clearly we are talking generalities, but it seems like a pretty common sense and not entirely "crappy" approach:
Quaker Oats - Old Fashioned:
Ingredients: 100% NATURAL WHOLE GRAIN QUAKER QUALITY ROLLED OATS
Quaker Weight Control Instant Oatmeal
Ingredients: WHOLE GRAIN ROLLED OATS, WHEY PROTEIN ISOLATE, MALTODEXTRIN, NATURAL AND ARTIFICIAL FLAVOR, SALT, OAT FLOUR, CALCIUM CARBONATE, GUAR GUM, CARAMEL COLOR, SOY LECITHIN, ACESULFAME POTASSIUM, SUCRALOSE, NIACINAMIDE*, REDUCED IRON, VITAMIN A PALMITATE, PYRIDOXINE HYDROCHLORIDE*, RIBOFLAVIN*, THIAMIN MONONITRATE*, FOLIC ACID*.
The 2nd one has more vitamins and minerals in it...
Bioavailability.
Let's look at just one of the additives acesulfame potassium:
"...Many activists argue that the studies supporting acesulfame K's safety are unreliable. The Center for Science in the Public Interest, a nonprofit health advocacy group, leads the campaign for more research on acesulfame K. They point out that the FDA based is recommendations on several studies conducted in the 1970s, two of which were inconclusive. A third showed that female rats fed acesulfame K were twice as likely to develop breast tumors as those who did not consume the sweetener. CSPI has repeatedly asked the FDA to order more research on the long-term effects of acesulfame K, but as of this writing, no studies are planned..."
Another concern about acesulfame K's safety concerns methyline chloride, used in the manufature of acesulfame potassium:
"...Methylene chloride is used as a solvent in the manufacturing of acesulfame K. In other industries, methylene chloride is most often used as a paint stripper, a degreaser and as a propellant agent. It has applications in the food industry, such as decaffeinating coffee and tea, [coffee is mostly decaffeinated now using the Swiss water process] but concerns about its safety have led manufacturers to seek alternatives. Long-term exposure to this chemical may cause headaches, depression, mental confusion, liver and kidney complications, nausea, vision issues and cancer..."
The CSPI is a fear mongering outfit and you seem to not understand context and dosage
0 -
Determining if an ingredient is "good" or "bad" based off your own intellect and ability to pronounce words is a pretty crappy way to determine it.
Is it a perfect approach? No. A "crappy" aproach? Really? Let's use oatmeal as an example.
If I compare the ingredients list of the two oatmeals below, wouldn't common sense tell you that the one with the shorter and simpler ingredients list is likely better for you? Clearly we are talking generalities, but it seems like a pretty common sense and not entirely "crappy" approach:
Quaker Oats - Old Fashioned:
Ingredients: 100% NATURAL WHOLE GRAIN QUAKER QUALITY ROLLED OATS
Quaker Weight Control Instant Oatmeal
Ingredients: WHOLE GRAIN ROLLED OATS, WHEY PROTEIN ISOLATE, MALTODEXTRIN, NATURAL AND ARTIFICIAL FLAVOR, SALT, OAT FLOUR, CALCIUM CARBONATE, GUAR GUM, CARAMEL COLOR, SOY LECITHIN, ACESULFAME POTASSIUM, SUCRALOSE, NIACINAMIDE*, REDUCED IRON, VITAMIN A PALMITATE, PYRIDOXINE HYDROCHLORIDE*, RIBOFLAVIN*, THIAMIN MONONITRATE*, FOLIC ACID*.
The 2nd one has more vitamins and minerals in it...
And it also has acesulfame potassium and Sucralose. We just looked at acesulfame K, now let's look at Sucralose:
"...Splenda, also called sucralose, is derived from sugar, or sucrose. Chlorine molecules are added to the sugar molecule. The three chlorine molecules that are added to the substance react chemically to convert the sucrose molecule into a fructo-galactose molecule. Because this is a molecule that does not occur in nature, the body is unable to process or metabolize the molecule when ingested. Thus, because the sucralose is not metabolized by the body, it supposedly has no calories. However, critics argue that it would in fact have calories if our bodies were able to ingest it, and point out that the lack of ability to metabolize the chemical could have health risks..."
The health risks, if any, are clearly unknown. Don't know about any of you, but I'd rather not be the subject of a lab experiment.
Read more: What Are the Dangers of Sucralose? | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_5147209_dangers-sucralose.html#ixzz2S4GrybUq0 -
Determining if an ingredient is "good" or "bad" based off your own intellect and ability to pronounce words is a pretty crappy way to determine it.
Is it a perfect approach? No. A "crappy" aproach? Really? Let's use oatmeal as an example.
If I compare the ingredients list of the two oatmeals below, wouldn't common sense tell you that the one with the shorter and simpler ingredients list is likely better for you? Clearly we are talking generalities, but it seems like a pretty common sense and not entirely "crappy" approach:
Quaker Oats - Old Fashioned:
Ingredients: 100% NATURAL WHOLE GRAIN QUAKER QUALITY ROLLED OATS
Quaker Weight Control Instant Oatmeal
Ingredients: WHOLE GRAIN ROLLED OATS, WHEY PROTEIN ISOLATE, MALTODEXTRIN, NATURAL AND ARTIFICIAL FLAVOR, SALT, OAT FLOUR, CALCIUM CARBONATE, GUAR GUM, CARAMEL COLOR, SOY LECITHIN, ACESULFAME POTASSIUM, SUCRALOSE, NIACINAMIDE*, REDUCED IRON, VITAMIN A PALMITATE, PYRIDOXINE HYDROCHLORIDE*, RIBOFLAVIN*, THIAMIN MONONITRATE*, FOLIC ACID*.
The 2nd one has more vitamins and minerals in it...
Bioavailability.
Let's look at just one of the additives acesulfame potassium:
"...Many activists argue that the studies supporting acesulfame K's safety are unreliable. The Center for Science in the Public Interest, a nonprofit health advocacy group, leads the campaign for more research on acesulfame K. They point out that the FDA based is recommendations on several studies conducted in the 1970s, two of which were inconclusive. A third showed that female rats fed acesulfame K were twice as likely to develop breast tumors as those who did not consume the sweetener. CSPI has repeatedly asked the FDA to order more research on the long-term effects of acesulfame K, but as of this writing, no studies are planned..."
Another concern about acesulfame K's safety concerns methyline chloride, used in the manufature of acesulfame potassium:
"...Methylene chloride is used as a solvent in the manufacturing of acesulfame K. In other industries, methylene chloride is most often used as a paint stripper, a degreaser and as a propellant agent. It has applications in the food industry, such as decaffeinating coffee and tea, [coffee is mostly decaffeinated now using the Swiss water process] but concerns about its safety have led manufacturers to seek alternatives. Long-term exposure to this chemical may cause headaches, depression, mental confusion, liver and kidney complications, nausea, vision issues and cancer..."
The CSPI is a fear mongering outfit and you seem to not understand context and dosage
Now, why would the CSPI exist solely to be "fearmongers"? Just you labeling them as such, does not make their concerns worthy of a dismissive approach. I well understand the issues and I'm sure you know that just because a substance does not kill you immediately doesn't mean that it won't, over time, prove to be injurious to your health.0 -
Whenever you see the words "Sugar-Free, Low-Fat, or Fat-Free", I want you to think of the words "Chemical Sh** Storm" instead.
Good thing full fat and full sugared products don't have a ton of chemicals in them
Decent point. Make me think of the diet concept I saw once, something along the lines of "if each of the ingredients doesn't sound like food you have eaten before or you can't pronounce it, then it isn't food".
Would you eat a food with all this in it?
"Alpha-Linolenic-Acid, Asparagine, D-Categin, Isoqurctrin, Hyperoside, Ferulic-Acid, Farnesene, Neoxathin, Phosphatidyl-Choline, Reynoutrin, Sinapic-Acid, Caffeic-Acid, Chlorogenic-Acid, P-Hydroxy-Benzoic-Acid, P-Coumaric-Acid, Avicularin, Lutein, Quercitin, Rutin, Ursolic-Acid, Protocatechuic-Acid, and Silver."
I did this morning ...0 -
Or...I'll use my own common sense to decide what I am going to include in my diet and try and make it as well rounded, nutritious and tasty as possible whilst still achieving my calorie goal.0
-
They are all food fractions and it is probably better to get them in their natural settings because phyto-nutrients and other nutrients appear to work better in synergy. Good, whole natural foods without the addition of synthetic or artificially concentrated chemicals (most sweeteners are in that category, with the exception of honey) is likely a much better idea.
Honey is actually quite similar to High Fructose Corn Syrup (and also highly processed)0 -
They are all food fractions and it is probably better to get them in their natural settings because phyto-nutrients and other nutrients appear to work better in synergy. Good, whole natural foods without the addition of synthetic or artificially concentrated chemicals (most sweeteners are in that category, with the exception of honey) is likely a much better idea.
Honey is actually quite similar to High Fructose Corn Syrup (and also highly processed)
I was speaking of raw honey. In its natural state: "... scientists have found floral flavonoids in honey. These tiny traces of bioflavonoids, generally known as antioxidants, have powerful influences when entered into the body's cells. When ingested, they immediately increase the antioxidant levels within cells, 'decrease capillary permeability and fragility. They scavenge oxidants and inhibit the destruction of collagen in the body'. In fact in the recent years, major drug companies recognised the effectiveness of these flora-flavones in removing free radicals from our body and improving our body immunity functioning, and are now investing millions of dollars just to produce these substances artificially..."
While I wouldn't recommend that anyone with high blood sugar issues load up on honey--raw or not---it is probably about the safest substance out there for sweetening foods, if you decide to do so.0 -
Determining if an ingredient is "good" or "bad" based off your own intellect and ability to pronounce words is a pretty crappy way to determine it.
Is it a perfect approach? No. A "crappy" aproach? Really? Let's use oatmeal as an example.
If I compare the ingredients list of the two oatmeals below, wouldn't common sense tell you that the one with the shorter and simpler ingredients list is likely better for you? Clearly we are talking generalities, but it seems like a pretty common sense and not entirely "crappy" approach:
Quaker Oats - Old Fashioned:
Ingredients: 100% NATURAL WHOLE GRAIN QUAKER QUALITY ROLLED OATS
Quaker Weight Control Instant Oatmeal
Ingredients: WHOLE GRAIN ROLLED OATS, WHEY PROTEIN ISOLATE, MALTODEXTRIN, NATURAL AND ARTIFICIAL FLAVOR, SALT, OAT FLOUR, CALCIUM CARBONATE, GUAR GUM, CARAMEL COLOR, SOY LECITHIN, ACESULFAME POTASSIUM, SUCRALOSE, NIACINAMIDE*, REDUCED IRON, VITAMIN A PALMITATE, PYRIDOXINE HYDROCHLORIDE*, RIBOFLAVIN*, THIAMIN MONONITRATE*, FOLIC ACID*.
The 2nd one has more vitamins and minerals in it...
And it also has acesulfame potassium and Sucralose. We just looked at acesulfame K, now let's look at Sucralose:
"...Splenda, also called sucralose, is derived from sugar, or sucrose. Chlorine molecules are added to the sugar molecule. The three chlorine molecules that are added to the substance react chemically to convert the sucrose molecule into a fructo-galactose molecule. Because this is a molecule that does not occur in nature, the body is unable to process or metabolize the molecule when ingested. Thus, because the sucralose is not metabolized by the body, it supposedly has no calories. However, critics argue that it would in fact have calories if our bodies were able to ingest it, and point out that the lack of ability to metabolize the chemical could have health risks..."
The health risks, if any, are clearly unknown. Don't know about any of you, but I'd rather not be the subject of a lab experiment.
Read more: What Are the Dangers of Sucralose? | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_5147209_dangers-sucralose.html#ixzz2S4GrybUq
Not to rain on your parade, but any site that implies that a lack of ability to metabolize something points to a potential health risk is not a site that I would remotely believe is knowledgeable. What is their opinion of fiber, for example?
And BTW, the potential health risks for just about everything we eat is largely unknown, unless you think you can find controlled peer-reviewed long-term human studies using a significant sample size for every vegetable, fruit, grain, herb, etc.0 -
Determining if an ingredient is "good" or "bad" based off your own intellect and ability to pronounce words is a pretty crappy way to determine it.
Is it a perfect approach? No. A "crappy" aproach? Really? Let's use oatmeal as an example.
If I compare the ingredients list of the two oatmeals below, wouldn't common sense tell you that the one with the shorter and simpler ingredients list is likely better for you? Clearly we are talking generalities, but it seems like a pretty common sense and not entirely "crappy" approach:
Quaker Oats - Old Fashioned:
Ingredients: 100% NATURAL WHOLE GRAIN QUAKER QUALITY ROLLED OATS
Quaker Weight Control Instant Oatmeal
Ingredients: WHOLE GRAIN ROLLED OATS, WHEY PROTEIN ISOLATE, MALTODEXTRIN, NATURAL AND ARTIFICIAL FLAVOR, SALT, OAT FLOUR, CALCIUM CARBONATE, GUAR GUM, CARAMEL COLOR, SOY LECITHIN, ACESULFAME POTASSIUM, SUCRALOSE, NIACINAMIDE*, REDUCED IRON, VITAMIN A PALMITATE, PYRIDOXINE HYDROCHLORIDE*, RIBOFLAVIN*, THIAMIN MONONITRATE*, FOLIC ACID*.
The 2nd one has more vitamins and minerals in it...
And it also has acesulfame potassium and Sucralose. We just looked at acesulfame K, now let's look at Sucralose:
"...Splenda, also called sucralose, is derived from sugar, or sucrose. Chlorine molecules are added to the sugar molecule. The three chlorine molecules that are added to the substance react chemically to convert the sucrose molecule into a fructo-galactose molecule. Because this is a molecule that does not occur in nature, the body is unable to process or metabolize the molecule when ingested. Thus, because the sucralose is not metabolized by the body, it supposedly has no calories. However, critics argue that it would in fact have calories if our bodies were able to ingest it, and point out that the lack of ability to metabolize the chemical could have health risks..."
The health risks, if any, are clearly unknown. Don't know about any of you, but I'd rather not be the subject of a lab experiment.
Read more: What Are the Dangers of Sucralose? | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_5147209_dangers-sucralose.html#ixzz2S4GrybUq
Not to rain on your parade, but any site that implies that a lack of ability to metabolize something points to a potential health risk is not a site that I would remotely believe is knowledgeable. What is their opinion of fiber, for example?
And BTW, the potential health risks for just about everything we eat is largely unknown, unless you think you can find controlled peer-reviewed long-term human studies using a significant sample size for every vegetable, fruit, grain, herb, etc.
Indigestible fiber is a natural part of many foods that humans have been eating for a very long time. Man-made synthetic chemicals like Sucralose is not.0 -
Determining if an ingredient is "good" or "bad" based off your own intellect and ability to pronounce words is a pretty crappy way to determine it.
Is it a perfect approach? No. A "crappy" aproach? Really? Let's use oatmeal as an example.
If I compare the ingredients list of the two oatmeals below, wouldn't common sense tell you that the one with the shorter and simpler ingredients list is likely better for you? Clearly we are talking generalities, but it seems like a pretty common sense and not entirely "crappy" approach:
Quaker Oats - Old Fashioned:
Ingredients: 100% NATURAL WHOLE GRAIN QUAKER QUALITY ROLLED OATS
Quaker Weight Control Instant Oatmeal
Ingredients: WHOLE GRAIN ROLLED OATS, WHEY PROTEIN ISOLATE, MALTODEXTRIN, NATURAL AND ARTIFICIAL FLAVOR, SALT, OAT FLOUR, CALCIUM CARBONATE, GUAR GUM, CARAMEL COLOR, SOY LECITHIN, ACESULFAME POTASSIUM, SUCRALOSE, NIACINAMIDE*, REDUCED IRON, VITAMIN A PALMITATE, PYRIDOXINE HYDROCHLORIDE*, RIBOFLAVIN*, THIAMIN MONONITRATE*, FOLIC ACID*.
The 2nd one has more vitamins and minerals in it...
Bioavailability.
So bioavilability doesn't matter when talking about whole grain/wheat flour vs white flour, but now matters here?
yeah it absolutely does.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