*RANT* Sugar, sugar, sugar!
Options
Replies
-
caitlinspillane0614 wrote: »Oh my gosh i have the same exact problem! Bananas and canned fruits specifically tend to be high in sugar which puts me pretty far over my allowance, but i love them so much! I really only buy canned because it is cheaper than fresh and i am on food stamps... and bananas are pretty cheap. I'm wondering where i get all that other sugar though as I'm not really eating any other sweet foods.
Vegetables and dairy also have naturally occurring sugars.
0 -
That's like saying cardio is bad for me. Because I don't like it.
Because it takes up to much time for me.
No cardio is not inherently bad - it's fine.
It's not ACTUALLY bad for me- it's just not something that fits in to my life or agrees with my sense of well being and prioritization- that doesn't mean cardio is BAD for me. It's not- it doesn't fit into my frame work.
That's completely two different subjects and not even remotely close to comparable. You can't say it's inherently having a physical negative impact on your body if you just don't like it.
not liking it- not wanting- don't want to- over do it- underdo it =/= bad.
If you cannot understand that concept well then- there is no hope for you.0 -
This is why I'm excited about the new nutrition labels that are being proposed. They add "added sugars" to the label, so that you can track them separately. Honestly, I removed the sugar tab all together because it was ridiculous.0
-
That's like saying cardio is bad for me. Because I don't like it.
Because it takes up to much time for me.
No cardio is not inherently bad - it's fine.
It's not ACTUALLY bad for me- it's just not something that fits in to my life or agrees with my sense of well being and prioritization- that doesn't mean cardio is BAD for me. It's not- it doesn't fit into my frame work.
That's completely two different subjects and not even remotely close to comparable. You can't say it's inherently having a physical negative impact on your body if you just don't like it.
not liking it- not wanting- don't want to- over do it- underdo it =/= bad.
If you cannot understand that concept well then- there is no hope for you.
Too much cardio is bad.
A lot of gym rats overdo cardio!
0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »That's like saying cardio is bad for me. Because I don't like it.
Because it takes up to much time for me.
No cardio is not inherently bad - it's fine.
It's not ACTUALLY bad for me- it's just not something that fits in to my life or agrees with my sense of well being and prioritization- that doesn't mean cardio is BAD for me. It's not- it doesn't fit into my frame work.
That's completely two different subjects and not even remotely close to comparable. You can't say it's inherently having a physical negative impact on your body if you just don't like it.
not liking it- not wanting- don't want to- over do it- underdo it =/= bad.
If you cannot understand that concept well then- there is no hope for you.
Too much cardio is bad.
so is to much of anything- that's kind of a no brainer.0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »That's like saying cardio is bad for me. Because I don't like it.
Because it takes up to much time for me.
No cardio is not inherently bad - it's fine.
It's not ACTUALLY bad for me- it's just not something that fits in to my life or agrees with my sense of well being and prioritization- that doesn't mean cardio is BAD for me. It's not- it doesn't fit into my frame work.
That's completely two different subjects and not even remotely close to comparable. You can't say it's inherently having a physical negative impact on your body if you just don't like it.
not liking it- not wanting- don't want to- over do it- underdo it =/= bad.
If you cannot understand that concept well then- there is no hope for you.
Too much cardio is bad.
so is to much of anything- that's kind of a no brainer.
It is a no brainer, you're right.
The problem is that a lot of people overstep the too much bracket and don't realise. The other problem is the 'too much' can be in a different place for everyone.
0 -
That's like saying cardio is bad for me. Because I don't like it.
Because it takes up to much time for me.
No cardio is not inherently bad - it's fine.
It's not ACTUALLY bad for me- it's just not something that fits in to my life or agrees with my sense of well being and prioritization- that doesn't mean cardio is BAD for me. It's not- it doesn't fit into my frame work.
That's completely two different subjects and not even remotely close to comparable. You can't say it's inherently having a physical negative impact on your body if you just don't like it.
not liking it- not wanting- don't want to- over do it- underdo it =/= bad.
If you cannot understand that concept well then- there is no hope for you.
You are really mixing apples and oranges because again you've switched to physically bad, but I'll play. If doing cardio made you overexercise, would that be bad?0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »That's like saying cardio is bad for me. Because I don't like it.
Because it takes up to much time for me.
No cardio is not inherently bad - it's fine.
It's not ACTUALLY bad for me- it's just not something that fits in to my life or agrees with my sense of well being and prioritization- that doesn't mean cardio is BAD for me. It's not- it doesn't fit into my frame work.
That's completely two different subjects and not even remotely close to comparable. You can't say it's inherently having a physical negative impact on your body if you just don't like it.
not liking it- not wanting- don't want to- over do it- underdo it =/= bad.
If you cannot understand that concept well then- there is no hope for you.
You are really mixing apples and oranges because again you've switched to physically bad, but I'll play. If doing cardio made you overexercise, would that be bad?
no I'm not. either it causes an negative impact on the body or it doesn't.
in moderation sugar- doesn't.
in moderation- cardio- also doesn't.
and yes- if I did to much cardio- it would be bad- which is what I already said.
Like eating too much sugar- bad.
I don't understand how you don't understand this.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »That's like saying cardio is bad for me. Because I don't like it.
Because it takes up to much time for me.
No cardio is not inherently bad - it's fine.
It's not ACTUALLY bad for me- it's just not something that fits in to my life or agrees with my sense of well being and prioritization- that doesn't mean cardio is BAD for me. It's not- it doesn't fit into my frame work.
That's completely two different subjects and not even remotely close to comparable. You can't say it's inherently having a physical negative impact on your body if you just don't like it.
not liking it- not wanting- don't want to- over do it- underdo it =/= bad.
If you cannot understand that concept well then- there is no hope for you.
You are really mixing apples and oranges because again you've switched to physically bad, but I'll play. If doing cardio made you overexercise, would that be bad?
no I'm not. either it causes an negative impact on the body or it doesn't.
in moderation sugar- doesn't.
in moderation- cardio- also doesn't.
and yes- if I did to much cardio- it would be bad- which is what I already said.
Like eating too much sugar- bad.
I don't understand how you don't understand this.
And I don't understand how you can't see that psychology plays a huge role in diet for some people.0 -
That's like saying cardio is bad for me. Because I don't like it.
Because it takes up to much time for me.
No cardio is not inherently bad - it's fine.
It's not ACTUALLY bad for me- it's just not something that fits in to my life or agrees with my sense of well being and prioritization- that doesn't mean cardio is BAD for me. It's not- it doesn't fit into my frame work.
That's completely two different subjects and not even remotely close to comparable. You can't say it's inherently having a physical negative impact on your body if you just don't like it.
No one was talking about a physical negative until the goal posts were moved, which was the entire point of the post -- the question is not why sugar would be physically bad to the person, but why it might be bad, at all.
For instance, if my goal was to lose weight, exercising might be a good way to go about doing it. There are a hundred different ways to do this. Cardio, I hate. I think it's boring, useless after a certain point, and I know I'll never be the type of person who enjoys doing long, steady state cardio. Lifting, on the other hand, I love. I am excited every time I attempt a PR, for instance. I look forward to going to the gym.
Now, I could type out a couple of paragraphs every time my exercise choices are mentioned in passing, and explain this, or I could say that "cardio is a bad method of fitness, for me" and leave it at that. Is it completely exact? Probably not -- but it gets the point across fairly reasonably, I guess.not liking it- not wanting- don't want to- over do it- underdo it =/= bad.
If you cannot understand that concept well then- there is no hope for you.
Perhaps I am hopeless, or perhaps I'm just willing to follow a conversation and have a reasonable discussion without resorting to insulting people.
0 -
can you please point out ONE insult I have made?That's like saying cardio is bad for me. Because I don't like it.
Because it takes up to much time for me.
No cardio is not inherently bad - it's fine.
It's not ACTUALLY bad for me- it's just not something that fits in to my life or agrees with my sense of well being and prioritization- that doesn't mean cardio is BAD for me. It's not- it doesn't fit into my frame work.
That's completely two different subjects and not even remotely close to comparable. You can't say it's inherently having a physical negative impact on your body if you just don't like it.
No one was talking about a physical negative until the goal posts were moved, which was the entire point of the post -- the question is not why sugar would be physically bad to the person, but why it might be bad, at all.
For instance, if my goal was to lose weight, exercising might be a good way to go about doing it. There are a hundred different ways to do this. Cardio, I hate. I think it's boring, useless after a certain point, and I know I'll never be the type of person who enjoys doing long, steady state cardio. Lifting, on the other hand, I love. I am excited every time I attempt a PR, for instance. I look forward to going to the gym.
Now, I could type out a couple of paragraphs every time my exercise choices are mentioned in passing, and explain this, or I could say that "cardio is a bad method of fitness, for me" and leave it at that. Is it completely exact? Probably not -- but it gets the point across fairly reasonably, I guess.not liking it- not wanting- don't want to- over do it- underdo it =/= bad.
If you cannot understand that concept well then- there is no hope for you.
Perhaps I am hopeless, or perhaps I'm just willing to follow a conversation and have a reasonable discussion without resorting to insulting people.
Moving on:
Just because you have a hard time with something doesn't make it inherently bad for you.... ....crack. let's say crack - see if this analogy works for you
say you and I both use crack.
You can moderate your crack usage- and I cannot.- SO you have no dependency issues- where as I do.
guess what- crack is still inherently and unquestionably BAD for you- and for me.
The same cannot be sad for sugar- cardio or any other food that you consume outside of things that cause you physical issues- allergic reactions- insulin resistance- dependence.
People are quick to blame the food for the psychological issue- but that does not make the food bad. They have to address their psychological issues- but just because you hae an issue- doesn't mean the food is bad.
As far as moving goal posts- no one has said anything other than sugar in moderation is fine for you and it is not bad- processed- refined - or natural.
in excess- processed- refined and natural- will be bad for you.
No one suggested psychological issues till you all brought it up- everyone else was addressing the way the body processes it and the consumption of it. You all moved the goal posts- don't bring that on us- we have been addressing the same issue EVER time this comes up- it never changes.0 -
can you please point out ONE insult I have made?That's like saying cardio is bad for me. Because I don't like it.
Because it takes up to much time for me.
No cardio is not inherently bad - it's fine.
It's not ACTUALLY bad for me- it's just not something that fits in to my life or agrees with my sense of well being and prioritization- that doesn't mean cardio is BAD for me. It's not- it doesn't fit into my frame work.
That's completely two different subjects and not even remotely close to comparable. You can't say it's inherently having a physical negative impact on your body if you just don't like it.
No one was talking about a physical negative until the goal posts were moved, which was the entire point of the post -- the question is not why sugar would be physically bad to the person, but why it might be bad, at all.
For instance, if my goal was to lose weight, exercising might be a good way to go about doing it. There are a hundred different ways to do this. Cardio, I hate. I think it's boring, useless after a certain point, and I know I'll never be the type of person who enjoys doing long, steady state cardio. Lifting, on the other hand, I love. I am excited every time I attempt a PR, for instance. I look forward to going to the gym.
Now, I could type out a couple of paragraphs every time my exercise choices are mentioned in passing, and explain this, or I could say that "cardio is a bad method of fitness, for me" and leave it at that. Is it completely exact? Probably not -- but it gets the point across fairly reasonably, I guess.not liking it- not wanting- don't want to- over do it- underdo it =/= bad.
If you cannot understand that concept well then- there is no hope for you.
Perhaps I am hopeless, or perhaps I'm just willing to follow a conversation and have a reasonable discussion without resorting to insulting people.
Moving on:
Just because you have a hard time with something doesn't make it inherently bad for you.... ....crack. let's say crack - see if this analogy works for you
say you and I both use crack.
You can moderate your crack usage- and I cannot.- SO you have no dependency issues- where as I do.
guess what- crack is still inherently and unquestionably BAD for you- and for me.
The same cannot be sad for sugar- cardio or any other food that you consume outside of things that cause you physical issues- allergic reactions- insulin resistance- dependence.
People are quick to blame the food for the psychological issue- but that does not make the food bad. They have to address their psychological issues- but just because you hae an issue- doesn't mean the food is bad.
As far as moving goal posts- no one has said anything other than sugar in moderation is fine for you and it is not bad- processed- refined - or natural.
in excess- processed- refined and natural- will be bad for you.
No one suggested psychological issues till you all brought it up- everyone else was addressing the way the body processes it and the consumption of it. You all moved the goal posts- don't bring that on us- we have been addressing the same issue EVER time this comes up- it never changes.
No, that's not true. At least not in the post to which I replied. It said outside a medical condition sugar was not bad. Bad =/= physically bad.
Saying a food is only bad if it negatively affects health as a definitive statement is just as wrong as saying a food is bad as a definitive statement.0 -
It said outside a medical condition sugar was not bad.
Because it's not.
0 -
BWAHAHAHAHA.DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »Herrspoon said there was no difference between natural sugar and refined sugar. There is a huge difference between the two. One is produced in nature and one is produced in a factory.
I was told this thread had gems.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
So outside of a medical condition how would sugar be bad for skmeone?Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »A diabetic does not process honey any differently than refined sugar. One is refined by the honey bee. Sugars from fruit are slowed down by the added fiber and are therefore safer for the diabetic (in moderation). There is so much misinformation here. I would advise recently diagnosed insulin resistant and pre-diabetic people to erase their brains of anything read here and take a class on diabetic menu planning.
I grew up in the West Indies where they grow sugar cane. I imagine it would take a while to chew out the sugar straight from the cane, which would slow it's absorption. Not to mention wear down the teeth. I've tried.
What about the people that don't have diabetes? Because it seems like every time a sugar conversation comes up we hear "In diabetics and insulin resistant" but what about the non?
People without The Beetus can safely eat sugars according to their psychological preferences. So, you know, if it causes you emotional turmoil, don't eat it. But, even if you are trying to lose weight, if it fits in your calorie plan, it won't cause you to gain wait any more than any other type of food with the same calorie total.
The diabetic and insulin resistant caveat "keeps coming up" because that is the only biological reason to cut sugar.
So then why does it need to end up at diabetes every time people start with the whole fruit is good, refined sugar is bad or fructose alarmist come up. Someone says they are addicted or generally wants to reduce it because they "know" it's bad for us, a bunch of people come in and say it's not, then people pop in..........Diabetes!!!! All roads seem to lead to diabetes.
Why are the responses from the "sugar is sugar" crowd is the same whether someone says " I know it's bad for us", or "I know it's bad for me"? As if responders have a clue what is bad for someone else.
the rebuttal doesn't change just because the the question comes in a different form.
And as we always say- outside of medical conditions- it's not relevant.
There is no way you could know that.
Personal preference. Personal beliefs. Personal psycohology. Personal opinion.
Personal everything you just listed and something being physically bad for them is 2 different things. Nice try.
LOL I see what you did there.
LOL I see what you tried there.
Nice back pedal.
Were you conflating two different things again and trying to make them appear to have parity? lulz.0 -
For those of you fighting the good fight, you're ice skating uphill. You can't debunk a myth on a site that perpetuates and enables the same myth.
http://blog.myfitnesspal.com/15-simple-hacks-for-eating-less-sugar/
http://blog.myfitnesspal.com/so-you-want-to-stop-eating-added-sugar/
http://blog.myfitnesspal.com/trying-to-avoid-sugar/0 -
He spoke out against the royal family!0
-
herrspoons wrote: »I heard that if you go over 25g of sugar Liam Neeson will come round and kill everyone.
Or you could just not worry about it.
I'm over all the time - where the f@ck is Liam?
0 -
Laurend224 wrote: »Track fiber.
This, as long as you hit your protein, fat, carb and fibre targets, ignore how much sugar you're consuming. It matters not.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 937 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions