What's wrong with "added sugar"?

tennisdude2004 · May 2014

show previous quotes

This is a question for those who believe there is something wrong with "added sugar," and who are trying to cut it from their diet.

About half of my sugar comes from ~5 servings of fruit a day, and half from "added sugar," e.g. soda, ice cream, brown sugar in my oatmeal, etc.

How is the "added sugar" any different (i.e. worse) than the non-added sugar coming from the fruits? Personally, I cannot think of a reason, or a rational argument, that supports that view. So, if there is one, I'd like to hear it.

There's nothing right about sugar either.

Simple sugars are empty calories and non essential and if you are looking to reduce your calorie intake so you can be in a calorie deficit to drop weight, then they are an easy option - the low hanging fruit!

Most people will look to cut back on sugar in candy, soda's and other junk food. I should think most people who embark on the sugar cutting journey will not reduce it much from fruit and veggies, as those offer vitamins and fibre in more substantial quantities than junk food (based on nutrient to calories ratio).

"empty calories" ain't no such animal.

If it has calories, it provides energy, it it provides energy it isn't empty.
Within a reasonably balanced diet there is NO NEED to cut back on sugars.

moderation...

Empty, as in mainly void of micro nutrients - it's a term I got from Alan Aragon.

It certainly isn't a term he invented.

But Alan will also tell you that there is no need to eliminate added sugar in a balanced diet. I believe he's into the 20% discretionary value of macros from "whatever you like" if you meet the macros.

Most food is void of a few micros (or even macros) - variety covers this.

I mean we could eliminate added
- oil
- water
- salt
- spices
- greens

they are all void of some macros or micros.....

Agreed, but a lot of people looking to cut back on sugar are not eating a healthy balanced diet - yet!

But Alan does advocate limited junk food and sugar as part of a balanced diet (if that's what you enjoy eating).

Also yes Alan didn't invent the term empty-calories, but he uses it and that's good enough for me.

EvgeniZyntx · May 2014

show previous quotes

I hate when people use the "there's no nutritional benefit to added sugar" argument. It's like saying you shouldn't play video games unless you work in that field because it doesn't directly benefit your life or career. If it makes you happy and isn't hurting you, there's nothing wrong with enjoying it every now and then.

I think most people point out the nutritional insignificance of sugar to explain why they are cutting it back. Also most people doing this are struggling with keeping there calories in a deficit and see sugar as an easy option to achieve their calorie deficit.

I'm not sure many people are arguing that if you have calories to spare and micros covered that you shouldn't indulge every now and then.

There are "many" people here that argue that "sugar is bad" is an absolute.

I'm a bit amused at how the word "many" is used in the last few posts as if to create a random ad hoc group of a population inclusion or exclusion. It might be better to replace it by "some".

Biggirllittledreams · May 2014

"empty calories" ain't no such animal.

If it has calories, it provides energy, it it provides energy it isn't empty.

You're right: empty calories do in fact provide energy. Outside of water and such, everything has energy regardless of what exactly you're consuming.

The 'empty' part of the phrase 'empty calories' is talking about the fact that these foods' don't provide nutrients in those allotted calories. They never claimed to be calories that were void of energy.

EvgeniZyntx · May 2014

But Alan does advocate limited junk food and sugar as part of a balanced diet (if that's what you enjoy eating).

Because not a single person in their right mind advocates unlimited "junk" food as part of a balanced diet.
He also argues away from the "junk" designation.

The words you use color your bias.

EvgeniZyntx · May 2014

show previous quotes

"empty calories" ain't no such animal.

If it has calories, it provides energy, it it provides energy it isn't empty.

You're right: empty calories do in fact provide energy. Outside of water and such, everything has energy regardless of what exactly you're consuming.

The 'empty' part of the phrase 'empty calories' is talking about the fact that these foods' don't provide nutrients in those allotted calories. They never claimed to be calories that were void of energy.

Sugar is a nutrient, stricto sensu.

goldthistime · May 2014

In for "trigger foods" and sugar toxins

Okay, so "toxin" is an inappropriate adjective for sugar. But "trigger" is right on the money for me. If I have a little, I want a lot. Doesn't happen with any other food.

tennisdude2004 · May 2014

show previous quotes

"empty calories" ain't no such animal.

If it has calories, it provides energy, it it provides energy it isn't empty.

You're right: empty calories do in fact provide energy. Outside of water and such, everything has energy regardless of what exactly you're consuming.

The 'empty' part of the phrase 'empty calories' is talking about the fact that these foods' don't provide micro nutrients in those allotted calories. They never claimed to be calories that were void of energy.

Sugar is a nutrient, stricto sensu.

Edited for clearer understanding!

lemonsnowdrop · May 2014

show previous quotes

I hate when people use the "there's no nutritional benefit to added sugar" argument. It's like saying you shouldn't play video games unless you work in that field because it doesn't directly benefit your life or career. If it makes you happy and isn't hurting you, there's nothing wrong with enjoying it every now and then.

I think most people point out the nutritional insignificance of sugar to explain why they are cutting it back. Also most people doing this are struggling with keeping there calories in a deficit and see sugar as an easy option to achieve their calorie deficit.

I'm not sure many people are arguing that if you have calories to spare and micros covered that you shouldn't indulge every now and then.

Yes, it's a fine reason to cut back. However, it isn't a good argument in the "sugar is bad" scenario.

Acg67 · May 2014

show previous quotes

In for "trigger foods" and sugar toxins

Okay, so "toxin" is an inappropriate adjective for sugar. But "trigger" is right on the money for me. If I have a little, I want a lot. Doesn't happen with any other food.

So any saccharide consumed in a small amount leads to you wanting more?

tennisdude2004 · May 2014

show previous quotes

I hate when people use the "there's no nutritional benefit to added sugar" argument. It's like saying you shouldn't play video games unless you work in that field because it doesn't directly benefit your life or career. If it makes you happy and isn't hurting you, there's nothing wrong with enjoying it every now and then.

I think most people point out the nutritional insignificance of sugar to explain why they are cutting it back. Also most people doing this are struggling with keeping there calories in a deficit and see sugar as an easy option to achieve their calorie deficit.

I'm not sure many people are arguing that if you have calories to spare and micros covered that you shouldn't indulge every now and then.

Yes, it's a fine reason to cut back. However, it isn't a good argument in the "sugar is bad" scenario.

I personally do not believe that in moderation sugar is bad. IMO it's neutral - I certainly do not see it as good.

tennisdude2004 · May 2014

show previous quotes

In for "trigger foods" and sugar toxins

Okay, so "toxin" is an inappropriate adjective for sugar. But "trigger" is right on the money for me. If I have a little, I want a lot. Doesn't happen with any other food.

So any saccharide consumed in a small amount leads to you wanting more?

No but some high GI foods have been shown to increase stimulation in the brain regions associated with reward and craving.

lemonsnowdrop · May 2014

show previous quotes

I hate when people use the "there's no nutritional benefit to added sugar" argument. It's like saying you shouldn't play video games unless you work in that field because it doesn't directly benefit your life or career. If it makes you happy and isn't hurting you, there's nothing wrong with enjoying it every now and then.

I think most people point out the nutritional insignificance of sugar to explain why they are cutting it back. Also most people doing this are struggling with keeping there calories in a deficit and see sugar as an easy option to achieve their calorie deficit.

I'm not sure many people are arguing that if you have calories to spare and micros covered that you shouldn't indulge every now and then.

Yes, it's a fine reason to cut back. However, it isn't a good argument in the "sugar is bad" scenario.

I personally do not believe that in moderation sugar is bad. IMO it's neutral - I certainly do not see it as good.

If it contributes to a person's happiness and isn't causing harm, how is it anything but good? Anyway, this is definitely an opinionated point and not really relevant.

EvgeniZyntx · May 2014

show previous quotes

"empty calories" ain't no such animal.

If it has calories, it provides energy, it it provides energy it isn't empty.

You're right: empty calories do in fact provide energy. Outside of water and such, everything has energy regardless of what exactly you're consuming.

The 'empty' part of the phrase 'empty calories' is talking about the fact that these foods' don't provide (b)micro(/b) nutrients in those allotted calories. They never claimed to be calories that were void of energy.

Sugar is a nutrient, stricto sensu.

Edited for clearer understanding!

Ah, but they do provide macro nutrient value hence "empty calories" being a misnomer.
A long distance runner needing a "quick fix" of energy in the middle of a race is probably not best served by a bowl of broccoli.

It falsely assigns the idea that it has no nutritional worth. Completely incorrect - in a bulking regimen, I love all the extra chocolate I get to eat....

Iron_Feline · May 2014

show previous quotes

In for "trigger foods" and sugar toxins

Okay, so "toxin" is an inappropriate adjective for sugar. But "trigger" is right on the money for me. If I have a little, I want a lot. Doesn't happen with any other food.

So having an apple leads to you craving more?

PinkyFett · May 2014

I try to limit it because I have Hashimoto's hypothyroidism and with this, I'm more apt to develop diabetes and I don't want to deal with that. I would personally rather all of my sugar come from real foods, I am trying to stay away from processed anything for the most part.

EvgeniZyntx · May 2014

show previous quotes

In for "trigger foods" and sugar toxins

Okay, so "toxin" is an inappropriate adjective for sugar. But "trigger" is right on the money for me. If I have a little, I want a lot. Doesn't happen with any other food.

So having an apple leads to you craving more?

Having English lollies does. Proof.

Iron_Feline · May 2014

show previous quotes

In for "trigger foods" and sugar toxins

Okay, so "toxin" is an inappropriate adjective for sugar. But "trigger" is right on the money for me. If I have a little, I want a lot. Doesn't happen with any other food.

So having an apple leads to you craving more?

Having English lollies does. Proof.

Well obv - and pengiuns :laugh:

tennisdude2004 · May 2014

show previous quotes

"empty calories" ain't no such animal.

If it has calories, it provides energy, it it provides energy it isn't empty.

You're right: empty calories do in fact provide energy. Outside of water and such, everything has energy regardless of what exactly you're consuming.

The 'empty' part of the phrase 'empty calories' is talking about the fact that these foods' don't provide (b)micro(/b) nutrients in those allotted calories. They never claimed to be calories that were void of energy.

Sugar is a nutrient, stricto sensu.

Edited for clearer understanding!

Ah, but they do provide macro nutrient value hence "empty calories" being a misnomer.
A long distance runner needing a "quick fix" of energy in the middle of a race is probably not best served by a bowl of broccoli.

It falsely assigns the idea that it has no nutritional worth. Completely incorrect - in a bulking regimen, I love all the extra chocolate I get to eat....

Well I suppose it's all down to you individual interpretation of the term empty-calorie. I tend not to read everything so literally!!!

If some one says empty calorie to me I understand that it is a calorie void of vitamins, minerals and fibre. I would not even consider it being void of energy.

goldthistime · May 2014

show previous quotes

In for "trigger foods" and sugar toxins

Okay, so "toxin" is an inappropriate adjective for sugar. But "trigger" is right on the money for me. If I have a little, I want a lot. Doesn't happen with any other food.

So any saccharide consumed in a small amount leads to you wanting more?

Lol, I know this game. But I will play anyway. There is a threshold amount of sugar, that varies depending on circumstances (hormones, stress etc) that will trigger cravings. On rare occasions a sweet fruit like pineapple, or white bread/rice will do it, but generally the sweetness has to be more intense. It's never happened with milk. Can't play further right now though, the stage is yours.

12bfree · May 2014

I weaned myself from most added sugar years ago. The first departure was sweet tea. Then I discovered some really good tasting tea out there. I doubt it would help anyone to hear my thoughts on processed sugar. So I’ll leave it at this; when I consider the calories and nutritional benefit of adding a tablespoon of brown sugar to my oatmeal, I think Wow! I could have had a V8. It’s a personal choice.

Eat all the added sugar you want. If you’re not happy with the result, change.

SonicDeathMonkey80 · May 2014

show previous quotes

In for "trigger foods" and sugar toxins

Okay, so "toxin" is an inappropriate adjective for sugar. But "trigger" is right on the money for me. If I have a little, I want a lot. Doesn't happen with any other food.

So having an apple leads to you craving more?

You've seen the apple diet too huh? I'm a sucker for the pink lady variety myself.

mommabenefield · May 2014

Added Sugar means Added Calories

A 'no sugar added' fruit Popsicle or ice cream means that I can have just a little more of something I enjoy where as if they increase the sugar content I can only have less if I expect to meet my calories.
5 g of sugar versus 22 g of sugar
20 calories versus 120 calories
Get it yet?

Fruit sugar is naturally occurring in the fruit and its not the same as adding granulated sugar, corn syrup, etc to a food product

Diabetics benefit from no sugar added products, so do people who genuinely have sensitivities to sugar.

ETA: Another post made me also wanna say - Sugary sweet stuff is tasty true! but when you learn to eat foods that do not have a ton of sugar 'added' in my experience you actually learn to really taste what your'e ingesting

(Also, no such thing as an empty calorie unless its water, water has no calories. Every calorie has a cause and effect in your body)

tennisdude2004 · May 2014

show previous quotes

I hate when people use the "there's no nutritional benefit to added sugar" argument. It's like saying you shouldn't play video games unless you work in that field because it doesn't directly benefit your life or career. If it makes you happy and isn't hurting you, there's nothing wrong with enjoying it every now and then.

I think most people point out the nutritional insignificance of sugar to explain why they are cutting it back. Also most people doing this are struggling with keeping there calories in a deficit and see sugar as an easy option to achieve their calorie deficit.

I'm not sure many people are arguing that if you have calories to spare and micros covered that you shouldn't indulge every now and then.

Yes, it's a fine reason to cut back. However, it isn't a good argument in the "sugar is bad" scenario.

I personally do not believe that in moderation sugar is bad. IMO it's neutral - I certainly do not see it as good.

If it contributes to a person's happiness and isn't causing harm, how is it anything but good? Anyway, this is definitely an opinionated point and not really relevant.

mjrkearney · May 2014

There's a big difference between a bite of dark chocolate with dinner, a can of Coke with lunch, and the sheer volume of sugar I put on my cereal as a kid. If you can manage your lifestyle while bankrolling the local candy shop, all power to you. Personally, as much as I love RMCF, I have to limit my trips to biannually to avoid buckeye saturation.

EvgeniZyntx · May 2014

I weaned myself from most added sugar years ago. The first departure was sweet tea. Then I discovered some really good tasting tea out there. I doubt it would help anyone to hear my thoughts on processed sugar. So I’ll leave it at this; when I consider the calories and nutritional benefit of adding a tablespoon of brown sugar to my oatmeal, I think Wow! I could have had a V8. It’s a personal choice.

Eat all the added sugar you want. If you’re not happy with the result, change.

34 cals?

I certainly wouldn't put a V-8 in oatmeal. Blech.

Iron_Feline · May 2014

show previous quotes

In for "trigger foods" and sugar toxins

Okay, so "toxin" is an inappropriate adjective for sugar. But "trigger" is right on the money for me. If I have a little, I want a lot. Doesn't happen with any other food.

So having an apple leads to you craving more?

You've seen the apple diet too huh? I'm a sucker for the pink lady variety myself.

Those are my favourite as well :drinker:

12bfree · May 2014

show previous quotes

I weaned myself from most added sugar years ago. The first departure was sweet tea. Then I discovered some really good tasting tea out there. I doubt it would help anyone to hear my thoughts on processed sugar. So I’ll leave it at this; when I consider the calories and nutritional benefit of adding a tablespoon of brown sugar to my oatmeal, I think Wow! I could have had a V8. It’s a personal choice.

Eat all the added sugar you want. If you’re not happy with the result, change.

34 cals?

I certainly wouldn't put a V-8 in oatmeal. Blech.

If you fail to get the point, diet is not your issue.

LloydSev · May 2014

http://fedupmovie.com/#/page/home

This documentary is all about Sugar and it's role in American diets.

Acg67 · May 2014

http://fedupmovie.com/#/page/home

This documentary is all about Sugar and it's role in American diets.

Certainly an unbiased source

bcattoes · May 2014

show previous quotes

http://fedupmovie.com/#/page/home

This documentary is all about Sugar and it's role in American diets.

Certainly an unbiased source

Isn't everyone?

What's wrong with "added sugar"?

Replies

Welcome!

Quick Links

Categories