A Question About Sugar
Replies
-
mamapeach910 wrote: »Why are the only options when it comes to lollies none at all or the whole bag?
Gets me every time. So I try not to have them in the house but why do they put them at the checkouts as I am sure they are saying "buy me, buy me - you know you want to, I'm yummy!!!"0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »Why are the only options when it comes to lollies none at all or the whole bag?
Because some people have unhealthy relationships with food. Unfortunately, those who do have the inability to do moderation, assume it has to apply to everyone. It's no different then the carb threads or gluten free threads.
0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »BlueButterfly94 wrote: »If it's sugar from fruit, I'm not too bothered about it with my diet. But when it comes to cane sugar/etc... That's where I try to limit myself. Because that causes problems with my heart and makes me crave more unhealthy foods.
Sugar FROM fruit is a concern. Sugar IN fruit not as much.
Like sugar in Apple juice is a health concern whereas the sugar from eating an apple would not carry the same health concerns.
because plain fruit juice minus the pulp/fibre is a glass of pretty much high calorie nothingness. Whereas the whole fruit has got the total, nothing extracted. I get what you mean..... I think lol
independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/eating-fruit-significantly-cuts-diabetes-risk--but-drinking-juice-increases-it-says-study-8791472.html
Eating fruit significantly cuts diabetes risk - but drinking juice INCREASES it, says study
Christinev297 I think this study indicates when it comes to fruit and health that the whole is better than a part (just the juice of the fruit).
Those who take a common sense approach to trying to prevent Type 2 Diabetes and are studying the science behind good diets are sure to already understand eating an apple would be preferred to just drinking the juice from the same apple on most any level.
If you look up the study, you would see that one of researchers addresses readers' questions about the methodology of the study, particularly the whole fruit vs. juice question:
"Regarding the type or brand of fruits juices, we did not inquire about this detailed information in our food frequency questionnaire. However, the consumption of freshly-squeezed juices without added sugar is likely to be low in our cohorts."
http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f5001/rr/6758620 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »Why are the only options when it comes to lollies none at all or the whole bag?
Because some people have unhealthy relationships with food. Unfortunately, those who do have the inability to do moderation, assume it has to apply to everyone. It's no different then the carb threads or gluten free threads.
Oh, I understand that, I have the same relationship with brownies
The issue, in this case, I think goes further than thinking it applies to everyone though. The lollies are evil, the sugar is evil, it's not an issue of personal responsibility.
It's really okay to have a problem, in my opinion, admitting that you have a weakness when it comes to sweet things. I have no trouble telling people I have no self-control when it comes to brownies. They're a perfect storm of bitter and sweet and their texture is another part of the whole package. I'm not going to demonize brownies, though. The problem is mine. This is the issue I have with the whole CARBS are bad! SUGAR is evil!!! crowd. Their anecdata always comes down to stories that revolved around poor behavior with carbs/sugar and then they blame that behavior on the food, not themselves.
I used to think I had a problem with carbs and sugar. I don't. I have trouble with SOME. I was depressed and mindlessly overate others.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
GaleHawkins wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »BlueButterfly94 wrote: »If it's sugar from fruit, I'm not too bothered about it with my diet. But when it comes to cane sugar/etc... That's where I try to limit myself. Because that causes problems with my heart and makes me crave more unhealthy foods.
Sugar FROM fruit is a concern. Sugar IN fruit not as much.
Like sugar in Apple juice is a health concern whereas the sugar from eating an apple would not carry the same health concerns.
because plain fruit juice minus the pulp/fibre is a glass of pretty much high calorie nothingness. Whereas the whole fruit has got the total, nothing extracted. I get what you mean..... I think lol
independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/eating-fruit-significantly-cuts-diabetes-risk--but-drinking-juice-increases-it-says-study-8791472.html
Eating fruit significantly cuts diabetes risk - but drinking juice INCREASES it, says study
Christinev297 I think this study indicates when it comes to fruit and health that the whole is better than a part (just the juice of the fruit).
Those who take a common sense approach to trying to prevent Type 2 Diabetes and are studying the science behind good diets are sure to already understand eating an apple would be preferred to just drinking the juice from the same apple on most any level.
From your article....
"Some of the findings are based on a number of assumptions and models which may have distorted the results significantly."
BMJ also issued a correction to the study. Study was posted in August and the correction appears in December.0 -
-
GaleHawkins wrote: »
I provided a link to the original study in my post above where I corrected your statement about fruit juice vs whole fruit. You can follow that link then click on the link in that study which will take you to the corrections.0 -
I have a slightly different point of view then most of the kind people who have replied. Although I am used to calorie counting and attempt to keep the energy intake below my required baseline (to loose weight), I am aware of other concerns which negatively impact general health in relation to excessive sugar consumption (I am told over 70g of sugar is excessive according to my nutritionist who is a qualified organic chemist and has specialised in wholistic medicine). The main concern relates to the impact sugar has on the acidity of the PH of the body which, in turn, creates an environment for diseases which thrive on a poorly balanced PH (below 7 which implies acidity). Thus, sugar in any excessive amount should be avoided for this reason. Related concerns can be found in a great book I have been recommending for several years. David Gillespie's book "Sweet Poison" argues rather convincingly that sugar intake is directly responsible for obesity over the past 5 decades due to the insidious nature of Fructose and the chemical reactions which lead to excessive amounts of insulin which places stress on the pancreas and eventually the liver etc. Remember that sugar is a chemical (neither vitamin or mineral) and is 50 percent glucose and 50 percent Fructose) and has only been introduced into our diets at the dizzying heights we tend to consume in the past 50 years. I would love for people here to take a look at the book and see what you think? Thanks for keeping an open mind.-1
-
shelleygold wrote: »I have a slightly different point of view then most of the kind people who have replied. Although I am used to calorie counting and attempt to keep the energy intake below my required baseline (to loose weight), I am aware of other concerns which negatively impact general health in relation to excessive sugar consumption (I am told over 70g of sugar is excessive according to my nutritionist who is a qualified organic chemist and has specialised in wholistic medicine). The main concern relates to the impact sugar has on the acidity of the PH of the body which, in turn, creates an environment for diseases which thrive on a poorly balanced PH (below 7 which implies acidity). Thus, sugar in any excessive amount should be avoided for this reason. Related concerns can be found in a great book I have been recommending for several years. David Gillespie's book "Sweet Poison" argues rather convincingly that sugar intake is directly responsible for obesity over the past 5 decades due to the insidious nature of Fructose and the chemical reactions which lead to excessive amounts of insulin which places stress on the pancreas and eventually the liver etc. Remember that sugar is a chemical (neither vitamin or mineral) and is 50 percent glucose and 50 percent Fructose) and has only been introduced into our diets at the dizzying heights we tend to consume in the past 50 years. I would love for people here to take a look at the book and see what you think? Thanks for keeping an open mind.
Would a book about sugar titled Sweet Poison be unbiased? I doubt it.
Where did your nutritionist come up with 70 grams as the line when sugar becomes excessive? It seems an arbitrary number.
Attacked? I think not. Asked to clarify, and maybe provide peer reviewed studies? Yep, that's it.Welcome shelleygold, I hope you find what you are looking for here but I feel I have to warn you honey. Put on a helmet and a bullet proof vest as you will be attacked from everywhere.
I hope they are gentle with you as this is your first post.
0 -
It is amazing for me to see how this thread has turned. Some of the exact same stuff was just repeated yesterday (by the same people) in a separate thread in a completely different part of the forum. I got blasted for saying that "broccoli is healthier than a brownie".
I understand the alternate way of looking at it that is being presented here, but some of you have to admit that in general I don't think too many people grow up with the idea that there is no such thing as "unhealthy" food or "healthy" food. I can almost guarantee that if I asked 10 of my friends (not on MFP), all of them would be completely lost if someone told them no such thing existed.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »It is amazing for me to see how this thread has turned. Some of the exact same stuff was just repeated yesterday (by the same people) in a separate thread in a completely different part of the forum. I got blasted for saying that "broccoli is healthier than a brownie".
It's all about perspective.
Here is the nutrition information for broccoli:
And for three types of brownies:
When you compare nutrition facts, the deciding factor would be made according to what is important. If you need to fulfill your fat macro, and have the extra calories, the brownie would do it. However, if you need something low calorie and you are close to your sugar macro, then the broccoli might be right for you.I understand the alternate way of looking at it that is being presented here, but some of you have to admit that in general I don't think too many people grow up with the idea that there is no such thing as "unhealthy" food or "healthy" food. I can almost guarantee that if I asked 10 of my friends (not on MFP), all of them would be completely lost if someone told them no such thing existed.
This is true. My mother taught moderation, but she also taught us that some foods were not good for us, while others were. It took me a long time to realize that it's the overeating of any food that is not good for me, because overeating leads to excess calories and weight gain. If I moderate food and make choices in an attempt to meet my macros, then I'm doing good.0 -
Once again, if you get 100 calories from apple juice or 100 calories from an apple, for weight loss IT DOES NOT MATTER. For how quickly your body processes the fructose, yes, it does matter.
These sugar threads always end up the same way. People confuse calorie deficit and weight loss with nutrition and metabolism processes. They are not the same and have to be looked at as separate entities. CICO is the only thing that works to determine how much to eat to reach your goal (lose, gain, maintain). Looking at the nutrition profile of your food is how you determine what to eat and is very individualized based on preferences, your metabolism, medical issues if there are any, etc.
This, this, a million times, this.
I eat a very low-carb diet for personal (and weight loss) reasons, but what earlnabby says here is so, so true.
This should end the thread but it won't.0 -
I wanted to post one word for discussion and see where it leads. Inflammation. It is surprising to me that with all of these sugar threads I haven't really seen this come up much. I'm curious as to what many of you think about it and how it relates to high sugary foods. I don't know if some would lump it into the category of "medical conditions", but I think it deserves some attention. I know for me personally, sometimes consuming a lot of sugar at once can intensify my allergies a bit temporarily. While of course not everyone reacts the same way, I wonder if it would be agreed upon that sugar is an inflammatory substance. Or would some say that's not true. Also, while I gave a short term example, I'm also looking at long term implications.This should end the thread but it won't.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
I got it now. But I still think it's of note that most people simply don't grow up with that idea. It wasn't just me, it's probably just about everyone else I know outside of MFP.ForecasterJason wrote: »It is amazing for me to see how this thread has turned. Some of the exact same stuff was just repeated yesterday (by the same people) in a separate thread in a completely different part of the forum. I got blasted for saying that "broccoli is healthier than a brownie".
I understand the alternate way of looking at it that is being presented here, but some of you have to admit that in general I don't think too many people grow up with the idea that there is no such thing as "unhealthy" food or "healthy" food. I can almost guarantee that if I asked 10 of my friends (not on MFP), all of them would be completely lost if someone told them no such thing existed.
Oh please don't even go there. If you're going to go out of your way to discuss the thread where you clearly couldn't grasp what everyone was telling you then at least link it. You fail repeatedly to see the big picture.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10037714/sweets-when-bulking/p1
0 -
Wow just wow.GaleHawkins wrote: »BlueButterfly94 wrote: »If it's sugar from fruit, I'm not too bothered about it with my diet. But when it comes to cane sugar/etc... That's where I try to limit myself. Because that causes problems with my heart and makes me crave more unhealthy foods.
Sugar FROM fruit is a concern. Sugar IN fruit not as much.
Like sugar in Apple juice is a health concern whereas the sugar from eating an apple would not carry the same health concerns.
I just caught that. I'm still trying to figure out wth was meant, other than just chalking it up to the typed version of a grand moll seizure.-3 -
This may be true for you, but does not mean sugar is bad for a person.ForecasterJason wrote: »
I wanted to post one word for discussion and see where it leads. Inflammation. It is surprising to me that with all of these sugar threads I haven't really seen this come up much. I'm curious as to what many of you think about it and how it relates to high sugary foods. I don't know if some would lump it into the category of "medical conditions", but I think it deserves some attention. I know for me personally, sometimes consuming a lot of sugar at once can intensify my allergies a bit temporarily. While of course not everyone reacts the same way, I wonder if it would be agreed upon that sugar is an inflammatory substance. Or would some say that's not true. Also, while I gave a short term example, I'm also looking at long term implications.This should end the thread but it won't.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »
When people say it doesn't matter, it's generally understood after our macro and micronutrients are met we can eat what we want.......people keep saying it but for some reason you have it in your head that it means to eat refined sugar and junk food all day, nobody has ever said that, but maybe you like to take the opportunity to point out the obvious over and over and over and over because somehow it makes you feel better. The possibility is that you really don't understand the gist of the conversations here, or trolling.Kyta, I think your posts are amazing.
SSLRunner you said "The bottom line is it doesn't matter what you eat and where your calories come from, the only requirement to lose weight is to eat less calories than you burn."
To me the bottom line is that it does matter. What you eat matters.
This.
No one has ever said that nutrition doesn't matter. The pretense--as in Kyta's post and the feigned misunderstanding of SLL Runner's post--that people do argue that nutrition doesn't matter is tiresome and why these threads never go anywhere.
The problem is that no one can come up with a legitimate reason why some sugar in the context of an overall balanced nutritious diet is bad or unhealthy, so they have to trot out strawmen.
Well, either that or they genuinely think that eating whatever you want in moderation means surviving on Twinkies and pop, which seems pretty odd to me, and more a personal issue than what anyone is arguing for, but whatever.
So, when people are saying (a) "It doesn`t matter what you eat as long as you are in a deficit" what they mean is (b) "Of course it matters what you eat, and added sugars add a lot of calories without having a lot of nutrition, so you should be eating healthy most of the time. As long as you are eating a healthy, balanced diet then you can have the occasional treat,"? Cause I'm pretty sure that A and B don't equal each other in most people's minds. If they do, then we all agree, though
As has been explained a million times, when people say it doesn't matter what you eat as long as you are in a deficit they mean for the mechanics of weight loss. Obviously not for nutrition or health or energy or sustainability. But what works best for those things will vary somewhat by person.
That's why the very same people who say what seems to offend you so also say stuff like (b) (except that it's dumb to single out sugar for calories without nutrition since a moderate amount of sugar added to, say, some rhubarb has few calories and in a cookie recipe the calories from sugar are likely to be a small portion of the overall calories which IME owe more to flour and butter).
I also think you must understand that no one is claiming that it makes no difference for health whether you eat all Twinkies and coke or, instead, a balanced diet. It's basically impossible not to understand that.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Why are the only options when it comes to lollies none at all or the whole bag?
Because some people have unhealthy relationships with food. Unfortunately, those who do have the inability to do moderation, assume it has to apply to everyone. It's no different then the carb threads or gluten free threads.
Oh, I understand that, I have the same relationship with brownies The issue, in this case, I think goes further than thinking it applies to everyone though. The lollies are evil, the sugar is evil, it's not an issue of personal responsibility.
It's really okay to have a problem, in my opinion, admitting that you have a weakness when it comes to sweet things. I have no trouble telling people I have no self-control when it comes to brownies. They're a perfect storm of bitter and sweet and their texture is another part of the whole package. I'm not going to demonize brownies, though. The problem is mine. This is the issue I have with the whole CARBS are bad! SUGAR is evil!!! crowd. Their anecdata always comes down to stories that revolved around poor behavior with carbs/sugar and then they blame that behavior on the food, not themselves.
I used to think I had a problem with carbs and sugar. I don't. I have trouble with SOME. I was depressed and mindlessly overate others.
Great post, and precisely the issue.0 -
Where did your nutritionist come up with 70 grams as the line when sugar becomes excessive? It seems an arbitrary number.
Possibly arbitrary, 90 grams has been adopted by the Australians and tentatively by the EU.
Perhaps on the basis that you don't need that stuff anyway, so they set a limit of double what many seemed to eat in their fruit & veg.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »
When people say it doesn't matter, it's generally understood after our macro and micronutrients are met we can eat what we want.......people keep saying it but for some reason you have it in your head that it means to eat refined sugar and junk food all day, nobody has ever said that, but maybe you like to take the opportunity to point out the obvious over and over and over and over because somehow it makes you feel better. The possibility is that you really don't understand the gist of the conversations here, or trolling.Kyta, I think your posts are amazing.
SSLRunner you said "The bottom line is it doesn't matter what you eat and where your calories come from, the only requirement to lose weight is to eat less calories than you burn."
To me the bottom line is that it does matter. What you eat matters.
This.
No one has ever said that nutrition doesn't matter. The pretense--as in Kyta's post and the feigned misunderstanding of SLL Runner's post--that people do argue that nutrition doesn't matter is tiresome and why these threads never go anywhere.
The problem is that no one can come up with a legitimate reason why some sugar in the context of an overall balanced nutritious diet is bad or unhealthy, so they have to trot out strawmen.
Well, either that or they genuinely think that eating whatever you want in moderation means surviving on Twinkies and pop, which seems pretty odd to me, and more a personal issue than what anyone is arguing for, but whatever.
So, when people are saying (a) "It doesn`t matter what you eat as long as you are in a deficit" what they mean is (b) "Of course it matters what you eat, and added sugars add a lot of calories without having a lot of nutrition, so you should be eating healthy most of the time. As long as you are eating a healthy, balanced diet then you can have the occasional treat,"? Cause I'm pretty sure that A and B don't equal each other in most people's minds. If they do, then we all agree, though
That's what makes me want to pull my hair out when I read these threads. I think 90% of the posters on both sides do agree about what constitutes a healthy long term approach to weight loss: A sustainable diet that is high in micronutrients and fibre and sufficient in protein and fat, and creates a caloric deficit.
Both sides can be extremely vague about their approach - "I don't eat sugar and I lose weight" vs "I eat ice cream every day - only calories matter", and each side either honestly or disingenuously assumes that the other side has no other guidelines they follow. I think the MFP veterans are guilty of building strawmen in their arguments to some extent, but you also have to remember that newbies may not understand that there is a lot more implied than just what is stated.
Just cutting out sugar does not cause weight loss. However, some people find that they are less likely to overeat if they strictly reduce or even eliminate added fats and sugars and use whole food sources that are more satiating and contain more micronutrients. they feel full on fewer calories, and find that their cravings for sugary foods subside in time.
CICO does not ensure a healthy diet. However, for people who want to keep eating some less nutrient dense "fun food", using discretionary calories after macro and micro nutrient requirements are met is a good way to ensure long term adherence. They don't want to feel they are depriving themselves and risk returning to their old habits out of frustration.
I know that's stating the obvious for a lot of the old timers, but don't assume that people who receive no nutrition education in school and are trying to lose weight for the first time without a rigid diet program understand this. If they did, they wouldn't be asking. The constant arguments without full explanation are likely to make them even more confused. You know what you are trying to say. I (think I) know what you are trying to say. A lot of noobs take what you say at face value.
And please note I said 90% - I realize there are posters who think that cutting carbs (or fat, or anything else) means you can ignore calorie balance, and posters who think that 1200 calories of literally any foodstuff is a perfectly healthy approach regardless of fibre, protein, micronutrients, etc., but I'm not talking about these fringe dwellers, who are a lot rarer than you probably think.0 -
The latest research shows it doesn't matter what you eat, as long as you stay below your calorie intake. A low carb diet is helpful in controlling your appetite and keeping your blood sugar stable. A high processed sugar diet, is it good for your health? No. Will it keep you from losing weight. No. My sugar is always over, by double. One step at a time:
1) Manage your calorie intake
2) Monitor the foods you eat
3) Make incremental changes based on patterns
Go luck!0 -
shelleygold wrote: »I have a slightly different point of view then most of the kind people who have replied. Although I am used to calorie counting and attempt to keep the energy intake below my required baseline (to loose weight), I am aware of other concerns which negatively impact general health in relation to excessive sugar consumption (I am told over 70g of sugar is excessive according to my nutritionist who is a qualified organic chemist and has specialised in wholistic medicine). The main concern relates to the impact sugar has on the acidity of the PH of the body which, in turn, creates an environment for diseases which thrive on a poorly balanced PH (below 7 which implies acidity). Thus, sugar in any excessive amount should be avoided for this reason. Related concerns can be found in a great book I have been recommending for several years. David Gillespie's book "Sweet Poison" argues rather convincingly that sugar intake is directly responsible for obesity over the past 5 decades due to the insidious nature of Fructose and the chemical reactions which lead to excessive amounts of insulin which places stress on the pancreas and eventually the liver etc. Remember that sugar is a chemical (neither vitamin or mineral) and is 50 percent glucose and 50 percent Fructose) and has only been introduced into our diets at the dizzying heights we tend to consume in the past 50 years. I would love for people here to take a look at the book and see what you think? Thanks for keeping an open mind.
The body maintains a very strict pH level between 7.35 and 7.45. If the body's pH ever dipped into being acidic, you'd be dead within hours, as that would imply a catastrophic failure of most body systems. Eating sugar wouldn't do it.
As for sugar consumption over the last few decades? It's actually decreased significantly over the last 20 years. The largest increase in sugar consumption occurred in the 19th century. Sugar has been considered a necessary household staple since the 17th century.
The simple fact of the matter is over the last 50 years we humans have become far less active due to the rise of technological advances and the service economy, while eating significantly more calories than we were (a 500 calorie per day increase since 1970, mostly from fat.)
Moving less, eating more. The mystery of the "obesity epidemic" wasn't really that mysterious. But it also doesn't sell books, so people like Mr. Gillespie needed to invent a story to scare people with.
Also, for the record, all vitamins and minerals are chemicals. And just so you're aware, they're all acids, too. In fact, all dietary fat are acids, and all proteins are acids. So if all the foods we need to eat to be healthy are acidic in nature, why would sugar (which is neutral) make our pH more acidic, but all the acids we eat that are "healthy" don't? All it really takes is applying just a little critical thinking, rather than blindly believing the first things you read.-1 -
Every sugar thread makes me sad for the future of the human race. We won't make it if we remain as gullible as some.0
-
ForecasterJason wrote: »
I wanted to post one word for discussion and see where it leads. Inflammation. It is surprising to me that with all of these sugar threads I haven't really seen this come up much. I'm curious as to what many of you think about it and how it relates to high sugary foods. I don't know if some would lump it into the category of "medical conditions", but I think it deserves some attention. I know for me personally, sometimes consuming a lot of sugar at once can intensify my allergies a bit temporarily. While of course not everyone reacts the same way, I wonder if it would be agreed upon that sugar is an inflammatory substance. Or would some say that's not true. Also, while I gave a short term example, I'm also looking at long term implications.This should end the thread but it won't.
"Avoidance of chronic inflammation
Another potential benefit of low CHO diets might lie in their influence upon inflammatory processes that take place within various tissues. Inflammation is a well-established driver of early tumorigenesis and accompanies most, if not all cancers [148]. Chronic, 'smouldering' inflammation can both cause and develop along with neoplasia. There is evidence that chronic intake of easily digestible CHOs is able to promote such an inflammatory state in leukocytes and endothelial cells [94]. In obese individuals [149] and healthy subjects who underwent eccentric exercise training [150], the inflammatory state was further augmented postprandially through a high CHO intake, but not through high-fat, low CHO meals in the latter study. Maybe more importantly, even moderate CHO restriction has been shown to effectively target several important markers of atherosclerosis and type II diabetes, both of which are associated with chronic inflammation [151-157]."
Source: nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/8/1/75
ForecastererJason research seems to indicate through high intake of sugar/similar carbs that can in some cause an inflammatory state leading to atherosclerosis and Type 2 Diabetes.
You may have hit the nail on the head with your point about Inflammation. Thanks
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
ForecasterJason wrote: »It is amazing for me to see how this thread has turned. Some of the exact same stuff was just repeated yesterday (by the same people) in a separate thread in a completely different part of the forum. I got blasted for saying that "broccoli is healthier than a brownie".
It's all about perspective.
Here is the nutrition information for broccoli:
And for three types of brownies:
When you compare nutrition facts, the deciding factor would be made according to what is important. If you need to fulfill your fat macro, and have the extra calories, the brownie would do it. However, if you need something low calorie and you are close to your sugar macro, then the broccoli might be right for you.I understand the alternate way of looking at it that is being presented here, but some of you have to admit that in general I don't think too many people grow up with the idea that there is no such thing as "unhealthy" food or "healthy" food. I can almost guarantee that if I asked 10 of my friends (not on MFP), all of them would be completely lost if someone told them no such thing existed.
This is true. My mother taught moderation, but she also taught us that some foods were not good for us, while others were. It took me a long time to realize that it's the overeating of any food that is not good for me, because overeating leads to excess calories and weight gain. If I moderate food and make choices in an attempt to meet my macros, then I'm doing good.
That's some GREAT vitamin C in the broccoli!0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions