Is sugar bad for you?
Options
Replies
-
Well... actually...
Muscles use sugar first for energy. So there is a nutritional purpose for it.
IN for the ridiculous condemnation of sugar!
And the brain is about 80% glucose..or some other random, yet high, percent.
Glucose is very important for not only our muscles/energy, but for brain functions.....
maybe the specific types of sugar can be debated, but sugar is general is needed.0 -
There is absolutely NO food out there that is "necessary" for us to eat. We always have choices. Eat enough food to give you adequate energy while providing appropriate nutrition. Sugar is easy to fit into your diet, even when losing body fat.
What? YES there are foods that are necessary for you to eat or you will die.
No. There are nutrients we need to stay alive. But there is no one single food that is necessary for life.
No one said "one single food" in these statements above besides you.
It says "NO food" Singular. And it's true.
I knew you would try and argue this and you're wrong. In the grammatical sense and in the context of her statement "There is absolutely NO food out there that is "necessary" for us to eat." "food" is plural because it does not state that it is not, it does not say (single food). Example: Person A asks: what did you eat for lunch? Person B says: I ate food. Therefore "food" can refer to an entire meal made up of anything like fruits, veggies, meats, and rice all together which would be more than one.
Slow day today? Could you also provide a defnition of the word "context"?0 -
This is a little ridiculous.
Trying to justify sugar in a diet is like trying to justify cheating on a spouse because you're bored or hurt.
Yeah, there are "reasons" for it, but nothing good comes of it.
Sugar doesn't need justifying because it is found naturally in whole foods.
Molecularly, fructose and glucose are not so dissimilar that a justification can be made that one is better than the other. Fructose is considered more healthy simply because it is often found bound to fiber, which is another needed nutrient.
Omitting the consideration of fiber, how exactly does the body treat the sugar in an apple any differently than the sugar in a piece of cake?0 -
Sugar causes insulin spikes. There is anecdotal evidence that too many or too frequent insulin spikes leads to insulin and/or leptin resistance. Insulin resistance is considered by some to be a precursor to diabetes.
HOWEVER, there is no conclusive evidence that this is a causal correlation or even a correlation at all. Sugar, like most anything else, will likely fall into the 'too much of anything is bad for you' category.
Also, I am not a doctor and get most of my information from the internet. Luckily that can't put anything on it that isn't true.0 -
Nothing is inherently bad. Anything in large amounts can be. Overdoing it on sugar can destroy your liver. Sodium does the same thing. Drinking too much water can be bad for you. Drinking enormous amounts of tea can harm your bones. Just depends on the portion sizes. Keep your sugar intake normal, and you're fine.0
-
This is a little ridiculous.
Trying to justify sugar in a diet is like trying to justify cheating on a spouse because you're bored or hurt.
Yeah, there are "reasons" for it, but nothing good comes of it.
How many times did you cheat on your wife before getting all smug and joining MFP?
I don't get it. I'm smug and cheated on my wife because I said justifying sugar in a diet isn't good?0 -
This is a little ridiculous.
Trying to justify sugar in a diet is like trying to justify cheating on a spouse because you're bored or hurt.
Yeah, there are "reasons" for it, but nothing good comes of it.
My grapefruit tastes better. My strawberries taste better. It makes the things I bake tasty.
Bam, three good things. Your opinions Sir/Madam, is invalid.0 -
There is absolutely NO food out there that is "necessary" for us to eat. We always have choices. Eat enough food to give you adequate energy while providing appropriate nutrition. Sugar is easy to fit into your diet, even when losing body fat.
What? YES there are foods that are necessary for you to eat or you will die.
Which ones? It can't possibly be t-bones because I haven't had one in a long time. I eat more ground beef than anything. There are lots of different foods that I have never eaten, yet I manage to get adequate nutrition.
Please enlighten me. Now I am dying to know. :laugh:
:huh: Food contains nutrients, the main classes are carbohydrates, fats, minerals, protein, vitamins, and water. You need some of all of these or you can develop a deficiency disease or chronic systemic disease and die as a result. Food is defined as: any nourishing substance that is eaten, drunk, or otherwise taken into the body to sustain life, provide energy, promote growth, etc.
You EAT ground beef that contains PROTEIN and FAT which is NECESSARY for your body to sustain life. It's not the foods you
"have never eaten" it's the ones you already do that give you "adequate nutrition".
Aha!~
Now you seem to get what I am saying. You can choose to get your nutrients from any food. That's what I meant by saying we have choices. Sugar is one choice that can be made. Sugar is pure carbohydrates, with no micronutrients. :bigsmile:0 -
There is absolutely NO food out there that is "necessary" for us to eat. We always have choices. Eat enough food to give you adequate energy while providing appropriate nutrition. Sugar is easy to fit into your diet, even when losing body fat.
What? YES there are foods that are necessary for you to eat or you will die.
No. There are nutrients we need to stay alive. But there is no one single food that is necessary for life.
No one said "one single food" in these statements above besides you.
It says "NO food" Singular. And it's true.
I knew you would try and argue this and you're wrong. In the grammatical sense and in the context of her statement "There is absolutely NO food out there that is "necessary" for us to eat." "food" is plural because it does not state that it is not, it does not say (single food). Example: Person A asks: what did you eat for lunch? Person B says: I ate food. Therefore "food" can refer to an entire meal made up of anything like fruits, veggies, meats, and rice all together which would be more than one.
No she understood what I meant. There is no food that is essential. It is *nutrients* that are essential, not any specific food. Likewise, there is no food that is entirely devoid of nutrients, so barring allergies, intolerance, or preferences, there is no food that specifically needs to be entirely avoided, including sugar.0 -
There is absolutely NO food out there that is "necessary" for us to eat. We always have choices. Eat enough food to give you adequate energy while providing appropriate nutrition. Sugar is easy to fit into your diet, even when losing body fat.
What? YES there are foods that are necessary for you to eat or you will die.
No. There are nutrients we need to stay alive. But there is no one single food that is necessary for life.
No one said "one single food" in these statements above besides you.
It says "NO food" Singular. And it's true.
I knew you would try and argue this and you're wrong. In the grammatical sense and in the context of her statement "There is absolutely NO food out there that is "necessary" for us to eat." "food" is plural because it does not state that it is not, it does not say (single food). Example: Person A asks: what did you eat for lunch? Person B says: I ate food. Therefore "food" can refer to an entire meal made up of anything like fruits, veggies, meats, and rice all together which would be more than one.
Or they could have had a t-bone and nothing else for lunch. But even if it is plural what food or foods do you think are necessary. Not what nutrient(s) from food or foods. What food or foods?0 -
:yawn:There is absolutely NO food out there that is "necessary" for us to eat. We always have choices. Eat enough food to give you adequate energy while providing appropriate nutrition. Sugar is easy to fit into your diet, even when losing body fat.
What? YES there are foods that are necessary for you to eat or you will die.
Which ones? It can't possibly be t-bones because I haven't had one in a long time. I eat more ground beef than anything. There are lots of different foods that I have never eaten, yet I manage to get adequate nutrition.
Please enlighten me. Now I am dying to know. :laugh:
:huh: Food contains nutrients, the main classes are carbohydrates, fats, minerals, protein, vitamins, and water. You need some of all of these or you can develop a deficiency disease or chronic systemic disease and die as a result. Food is defined as: any nourishing substance that is eaten, drunk, or otherwise taken into the body to sustain life, provide energy, promote growth, etc.
You EAT ground beef that contains PROTEIN and FAT which is NECESSARY for your body to sustain life. It's not the foods you
"have never eaten" it's the ones you already do that give you "adequate nutrition".
Aha!~
Now you seem to get what I am saying. You can choose to get your nutrients from any food. That's what I meant by saying we have choices. Sugar is one choice that can be made. Sugar is pure carbohydrates, with no micronutrients. :bigsmile:
It's not what you said in the beginning so you can try to fix and update it now all you want but it doesn't change what you typed, I can only read what you type, I can't read your mind. If you're going to state something or argue a point try being more exact.0 -
There is absolutely NO food out there that is "necessary" for us to eat. We always have choices. Eat enough food to give you adequate energy while providing appropriate nutrition. Sugar is easy to fit into your diet, even when losing body fat.
What? YES there are foods that are necessary for you to eat or you will die.
No. There are nutrients we need to stay alive. But there is no one single food that is necessary for life.
No one said "one single food" in these statements above besides you.
It says "NO food" Singular. And it's true.
I knew you would try and argue this and you're wrong. In the grammatical sense and in the context of her statement "There is absolutely NO food out there that is "necessary" for us to eat." "food" is plural because it does not state that it is not, it does not say (single food). Example: Person A asks: what did you eat for lunch? Person B says: I ate food. Therefore "food" can refer to an entire meal made up of anything like fruits, veggies, meats, and rice all together which would be more than one.
Or they could have had a t-bone and nothing else for lunch. But even if it is plural what food or foods do you think are necessary. Not what nutrient(s) from food or foods. What food or foods?
:drinker: Rum!!! :bigsmile:0 -
You know what? There isn't one single food you need to eat by itself that is necessary but many people think we need to eat some sugar in our diet, that it is necessary. The point I'm making is that it is not necessary but it's also not bad to do so.0
-
Here are some books and sites to look into:
Nancy Appleton - 147 Reasons Sugar RUINS Your Health
www.nancyappleton.com
Dr. Weston A. Price - Nutrition & Degeneration
www.westonaprice.org0 -
You know what? There isn't one single food you need to eat by itself that is necessary but many people think we need to eat some sugar in our diet, that it is necessary. The point I'm making is that it is not necessary but it's also not bad to do so.
The only thing that I had against what you said was that you said sugar has no nutritional value... which is not correct. The body uses sugar, therefore, it has value. It can easily be overdone, yes. But that doesn't mean that it doesn't serve a purpose.0 -
What's with the sugar insanity recently? I'm perplexed.0
-
hell no, its sweet on and for you,
ha0 -
In sensible amounts, sugar is fine,0
-
This is a little ridiculous.
Trying to justify sugar in a diet is like trying to justify cheating on a spouse because you're bored or hurt.
Yeah, there are "reasons" for it, but nothing good comes of it.
uh .... whut?0 -
You know what? There isn't one single food you need to eat by itself that is necessary but many people think we need to eat some sugar in our diet, that it is necessary. The point I'm making is that it is not necessary but it's also not bad to do so.
The only thing that I had against what you said was that you said sugar has no nutritional value... which is not correct. The body uses sugar, therefore, it has value. It can easily be overdone, yes. But that doesn't mean that it doesn't serve a purpose.
yup. the body uses it for fuel, so great to use right before a tough workout. the brain also functions on, primarily, various forms of sugar.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 404 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 987 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions