*RANT* Sugar, sugar, sugar!
Replies
-
It's generally considered poor form (and rather insulting) to assume that you're starting a discussion from a position of intellectual superiority to the person you're speaking with.
It's not an insult. It's a reality- if you cannot understand this concept- there is no point further discussing it because I am- wholly incapable of reducing this concept to a level at which you might grasp it.
If anything- it's an insult to me since I lack the requisite tools to explain this concept-
That being said I find it to be conceivable and more than reasonable that I/we cannot reduce a concept more simply than we have here and have someone understand it- at which point- you just don't get and you wont' until your mind set changes.
I am perfectly capable of understanding what you're trying to say. It's simply that I disagree with you. To the extent that we can keep the disagreements civil, and not feel like we're talking past one another, I am open to the possibility that the act of having this conversation could cause me to either reconsider part of my position, help me more fully flesh out my beliefs on the topic, or open me to all new avenues of thought completely (like the crack analogy below).
In short, I've rarely found that I've learned much when surrounded by people who always agree with me. In as much as someone is willing to have an honest discussion here, I'm willing to engage them on things that I find to be interesting. It has been my experience that many here are not always willing to do so -- my apologies if I painted with too broad of a brush with regard to this conversation.
I actually wondered similarly the same thing as I typed it- knowing it was an open hole that could be exploited- but I felt the analogy was strong enough to continue to use it.Though part of me actually wonders if crack actually would be bad if someone could successfully moderate and experience no ill effect of their usage, this is probably neither here nor there, as smoking is "bad" in general.
As far as beer- no- let's say I can't moderate... but that does not mean beer is not bad for me.
I'm guessing you meant to say "that does not mean beer is bad for me..", not the other way way around, because otherwise we're agreeing.
I just cannot moderate. That means I have a problem with my self discipline- and the answer is "don't go to a bar" or "grown up and learn how to say no".
The beer still processes the same as it would for someone who can moderate. It is not 'bad for me'
the only difference lies in when my self control breaks down and I consume way to much.
Mmm. Addiction is a tough thing, and it might be where the analogy breaks down a bit. If "self discipline" was an effective strategy for people who have addiction issues, there wouldn't be a need for rehab or counseling services.
In any case, "not drinking beer at all" would be an effective mechanism for those people to manage what you term a self discipline problem, no? They can simply realize that it's not worth it for them, and find ways to modify their lifestyle that utilizes alternatives that they don't have the "self discipline" problem with -- i.e., going to a bar with their friends, but ordering a non alcoholic cocktail.
I see a lot of people doing that with their food intake, in this case with sugar, or carbs -- and I don't see a problem with it, personally. If I go out with a friend, and he orders a soda instead of a beer, I'm going to assume he has a personal reason to do so. Ditto with someone who wants their pizza crust made out of cauliflower instead of bread. I think it's likely not very productive to see it and say, "hey, why don't you just order one beer, instead of that non alcoholic stuff?" That's just me.
I recognize that I'm moving from the discussion of "bad" versus "bad for me" a little bit with this response, and I think that's likely going to go down the road of semantics, so I'm attempting to distill it down to the end point of the conversation, which is to say, what people do, why they do it, and what my reaction to it should be.
0 -
Laurend224 wrote: »martyqueen52 wrote: »Unless you have medical issues with sugar, don't worry about it.
this..
end thread/
now...
please...?
We aren't that lucky.
sigh...
apparently not ...0 -
Lezavargas wrote: »I dont concern myself too much when its naturally occuring sugar, i'd just track your refined and stay under in your calories, just my opinion though
hmmm so one form of sugar is better than another???
care to expound on that...?0 -
Lezavargas wrote: »I dont concern myself too much when its naturally occuring sugar, i'd just track your refined and stay under in your calories, just my opinion though
hmmm so one form of sugar is better than another???
care to expound on that...?
Excessive fructose can be more damaging to the liver (the liver fatty acids) than excessive glucose!
edit: -
In fact scrap that, as all sugar is processed and metabolized by the body identically the statement above must be impossible - my bad!
0 -
Lezavargas wrote: »I dont concern myself too much when its naturally occuring sugar, i'd just track your refined and stay under in your calories, just my opinion though
hmmm so one form of sugar is better than another???
care to expound on that...?
I remember seeing a thread that would probably clear up a lot of the common misunderstandings about foods0 -
based on what? I've not heard or seen that claim before.tennisdude2004 wrote: »Lezavargas wrote: »I dont concern myself too much when its naturally occuring sugar, i'd just track your refined and stay under in your calories, just my opinion though
hmmm so one form of sugar is better than another???
care to expound on that...?
Excessive fructose can be more damaging to the liver (the liver fatty acids) than excessive glucose!
0 -
Once ingested, sugar is sugar in the body. Doesn't matter the source or the process, the body responds to it the same. Also, eating veggies gives you all the vitamins and minerals you get from eating fruit.0
-
based on what? I've not heard or seen that claim before.tennisdude2004 wrote: »Lezavargas wrote: »I dont concern myself too much when its naturally occuring sugar, i'd just track your refined and stay under in your calories, just my opinion though
hmmm so one form of sugar is better than another???
care to expound on that...?
Excessive fructose can be more damaging to the liver (the liver fatty acids) than excessive glucose!
Yeah my bad - I must have dreamed it!
0 -
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?
Non Diabetic people stay out of Sugar Rant thread. Simple.
Life is not complicated. One can make it complicated and stressful by all means but actually it's not
Simple Definition of Life =
0 -
Are you on something?tennisdude2004 wrote: »
based on what? I've not heard or seen that claim before.tennisdude2004 wrote: »Lezavargas wrote: »I dont concern myself too much when its naturally occuring sugar, i'd just track your refined and stay under in your calories, just my opinion though
hmmm so one form of sugar is better than another???
care to expound on that...?
Excessive fructose can be more damaging to the liver (the liver fatty acids) than excessive glucose!
Yeah my bad - I must have dreamed it!
Why would you make that up?
0 -
0
-
Once ingested, sugar is sugar in the body. Doesn't matter the source or the process, the body responds to it the same. Also, eating veggies gives you all the vitamins and minerals you get from eating fruit.
That is factually incorrect. Fructose and glucose do in fact follow very different metabolic pathways. One can argue whether that makes one "better" or "worse", or "indifferent", but you cannot argue that the body processes both of them the same.
0 -
-
Now we have something- because YES- that is a different conversation- and typically one worth having.
-I recognize that I'm moving from the discussion of "bad" versus "bad for me" a little bit with this response, and I think that's likely going to go down the road of semantics, so I'm attempting to distill it down to the end point of the conversation, which is to say, what people do, why they do it, and what my reaction to it should be.
I honestly think that's probably a more worth while conversation for people in addressing how they move forward and dealing with said issue foods on a day to day situatinos.
The psychological aspect of food and how we consume it is going to vary indeed person to person and I agree should not be over looked. That to me is a vastly different conversation than if something is inherently good or bad for you.
Ah yes.Mmm. Addiction is a tough thing, and it might be where the analogy breaks down a bit. If "self discipline" was an effective strategy for people who have addiction issues, there wouldn't be a need for rehab or counseling services
Well. they DO need self discipline- but I think the counseling services are dealing with the mental aspect of why they do what they do- and helping develop a system to self regulate- which includes self discipline- it's not just a one shot answer. I would agree with that.
But. That does not mean- sugar is BAD for you. it is not bad for your body.
The way you engage with it- to me is a difference conversation.
0 -
0
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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.
Oh really? How so? Let's see what kind of explanation you come up with.
How would sugar be bad, suddenly became being physically bad. After I gave non-physical reasons why it would be bad. Let's see how you will twist that around.
That was not backpedaling... that was clarifying.0 -
I saw this show on the food network, or maybe it was the travel channel, w/e - they went to a factory that produces molasses and turbinado "raw" sugar. Both of these are repeatedly mentioned by clean eaters as being "better for you" than white sugar.
What I found out: both of those things are extremely processed. Like 7-8 processes to get to the finished product.
Sugar is sugar is sugar. None of it is bad for you in a balanced diet.0 -
bluelaceangel wrote: »bottomline: if you can not see a dietitian .. get the AMERICAN DIABETES MEAL PLAN FROM THE AMERICAN DIABETES ASSOCIATION.. it gives you the meal plan along with what is a serving.. it also helps you plan out you meals for the day..
What if you don't--I know this is hard to believe--have diabetes? Do you still have to plan your meals based on the American Diabetes Meal Plan?0 -
levitateme wrote: »I saw this show on the food network, or maybe it was the travel channel, w/e - they went to a factory that produces molasses and turbinado "raw" sugar. Both of these are repeatedly mentioned by clean eaters as being "better for you" than white sugar.
What I found out: both of those things are extremely processed. Like 7-8 processes to get to the finished product.
Sugar is sugar is sugar. None of it is bad for you in a balanced diet.
Not sure about turbinado, but molasses has quite a few essential minerals in it.0 -
Lezavargas wrote: »I dont concern myself too much when its naturally occuring sugar, i'd just track your refined and stay under in your calories, just my opinion though
hmmm so one form of sugar is better than another???
care to expound on that...?
Well, like the WHO said, the issue isn't really sugar itself, whatever kind. It's the likelihood that people are eating lots of calories that contribute nothing but energy when their lifestyle is such that they don't need more energy (in other words, they aren't very active). Thus, for the average person, one way to prevent getting fat and make sure that you get adequate nutrients is to limit (not eliminate) high calorie foods that contain few nutrients. Often, though of course not always, food items with added sugar are such items, so that's something worth watching.
I'd add that if you have other ways to monitor your calories and ensure that you are getting an overall healthy balanced diet, then don't worry about it. It's just one possible rule of thumb that might help people do that.0 -
What I like is brown sugar, a lot of folks try to make it out to be more healthy for you than white sugar.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »levitateme wrote: »I saw this show on the food network, or maybe it was the travel channel, w/e - they went to a factory that produces molasses and turbinado "raw" sugar. Both of these are repeatedly mentioned by clean eaters as being "better for you" than white sugar.
What I found out: both of those things are extremely processed. Like 7-8 processes to get to the finished product.
Sugar is sugar is sugar. None of it is bad for you in a balanced diet.
Not sure about turbinado, but molasses has quite a few essential minerals in it.
Except it's white sugar with molasses added back in. lol.
0 -
That does not mean- sugar is BAD for you. it is not bad for your body.
I think that's the core of our disagreement.
Person A, when they eat candy, would generally say that they don't find candy satiating -- instead, they find it makes them want more candy. Whether it be lack of willpower, self-discipline, whatever, they find it incredibly difficult to eat one or two candies and put the rest back into the box.
Person B, finds candy satiating. They eat one or two, put the box away, and don't feel the need to touch it any more.
Physically, assuming all else is equal between Person A and Person B, their bodies are going to convert the sugar to glucose and use it for energy, storing what isn't used.
Now, person A and person B want to lose weight. Since they're sensible people, they believe that calorie restriction is the way to do it. Things that help them along their path of sensible calorie restriction, I'll deem to be "good". Things that hurt them in their journey down this path, or threaten to derail them, I have no problem deeming as "bad".
For person A, "candy in moderation", given that it's previously been a huge struggle for them, simply causes more pain than the candy is worth. So they avoid it. Person B, with no such problems, incorporates candy occasionally and has no issue. Both maintain the same calories, both lose the same weight.
That's the distinction I make in my mind -- I think we would both agree that, for person A, "not eating candy" is a reasonable reaction to their issues they've had (though certainly not the only one). Certainly, they don't need candy as part of a healthy diet, and people should be free to pick and choose their own battles. Do we have consensus on that?
Where we diverge, is that I feel it's reasonable for person A to say, "candy is bad for me" because of those struggles, as an explanation to the "why don't you eat candy" question, because I feel that "bad" can relate to negative ramifications that are physical, psychological, or emotional. You believe that the statement can only hold true for negative ramifications that are direct physical result of ingesting the candy.
We'll likely not change each others minds on that one (which I hope I've articulated your point correctly), but if our thoughts for how person A can respond to their situation are in alignment, it at least demonstrates the semantic nature of our disagreement.
0 -
To this entire thread.0 -
Once ingested, sugar is sugar in the body. Doesn't matter the source or the process, the body responds to it the same. Also, eating veggies gives you all the vitamins and minerals you get from eating fruit.
That is factually incorrect. Fructose and glucose do in fact follow very different metabolic pathways. One can argue whether that makes one "better" or "worse", or "indifferent", but you cannot argue that the body processes both of them the same.
Well, that's alright. I know of not a single food, natural or man-made, that only has one or the other in it.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »levitateme wrote: »I saw this show on the food network, or maybe it was the travel channel, w/e - they went to a factory that produces molasses and turbinado "raw" sugar. Both of these are repeatedly mentioned by clean eaters as being "better for you" than white sugar.
What I found out: both of those things are extremely processed. Like 7-8 processes to get to the finished product.
Sugar is sugar is sugar. None of it is bad for you in a balanced diet.
Not sure about turbinado, but molasses has quite a few essential minerals in it.
Also, I have no idea how commercial molasses is made but my grandmother used to make her own molasses. I'm not really sure of the process because the stuff is too strong a taste for me so I never asked, but she cooked it up in a big pot.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »levitateme wrote: »I saw this show on the food network, or maybe it was the travel channel, w/e - they went to a factory that produces molasses and turbinado "raw" sugar. Both of these are repeatedly mentioned by clean eaters as being "better for you" than white sugar.
What I found out: both of those things are extremely processed. Like 7-8 processes to get to the finished product.
Sugar is sugar is sugar. None of it is bad for you in a balanced diet.
Not sure about turbinado, but molasses has quite a few essential minerals in it.
Also, I have no idea how commercial molasses is made but my grandmother used to make her own molasses. I'm not really sure of the process because the stuff is too strong a taste for me so I never asked, but she cooked it up in a big pot.
Good strong molasses is wonderful in meat glazes and baked beans.
Now I'm hungry, again...
Carry on with sugar rant (err debate)
0 -
That does not mean- sugar is BAD for you. it is not bad for your body.
I think that's the core of our disagreement.
Person A, when they eat candy, would generally say that they don't find candy satiating -- instead, they find it makes them want more candy. Whether it be lack of willpower, self-discipline, whatever, they find it incredibly difficult to eat one or two candies and put the rest back into the box.
Person B, finds candy satiating. They eat one or two, put the box away, and don't feel the need to touch it any more.
Physically, assuming all else is equal between Person A and Person B, their bodies are going to convert the sugar to glucose and use it for energy, storing what isn't used.
Now, person A and person B want to lose weight. Since they're sensible people, they believe that calorie restriction is the way to do it. Things that help them along their path of sensible calorie restriction, I'll deem to be "good". Things that hurt them in their journey down this path, or threaten to derail them, I have no problem deeming as "bad".
For person A, "candy in moderation", given that it's previously been a huge struggle for them, simply causes more pain than the candy is worth. So they avoid it. Person B, with no such problems, incorporates candy occasionally and has no issue. Both maintain the same calories, both lose the same weight.
That's the distinction I make in my mind -- I think we would both agree that, for person A, "not eating candy" is a reasonable reaction to their issues they've had (though certainly not the only one). Certainly, they don't need candy as part of a healthy diet, and people should be free to pick and choose their own battles. Do we have consensus on that?
Where we diverge, is that I feel it's reasonable for person A to say, "candy is bad for me" because of those struggles, as an explanation to the "why don't you eat candy" question, because I feel that "bad" can relate to negative ramifications that are physical, psychological, or emotional. You believe that the statement can only hold true for negative ramifications that are direct physical result of ingesting the candy.
We'll likely not change each others minds on that one (which I hope I've articulated your point correctly), but if our thoughts for how person A can respond to their situation are in alignment, it at least demonstrates the semantic nature of our disagreement.
nope- I'm with you. We have I think reached a logical and reasonable consensus. (WOOT- think that's a big thing on MFP!)
I personally wouldn't say "bad"- only because I - in my own world- like to move away from terms like "junk" unhealthy etc etc etc- but yes- I can understand how it's something someone would avoid because it's bad in a broader sense - and why they would say- I can't do sugar in X, Y Z form- it's bad for me."
I would hope- also for them they would understand- or begin to understand and move toward a healthy way of dealing with that so they could engage with said trouble food in am more moderate fashion. hope being the operative word- and understand that fundamentally the food is not bad for them on a physical level.
That being said- I also understand the need to separate from things you have an unhealthy relationship with and also to use words that people who don't engage in these types of topics will understand.... so - to a completely generic- cold conversation if someone asks me what I eat- I'll typically say I eat in moderation- count calories and I make sacrifices for junk food.
Now- I don't honestly think it's junk food- but it's easier than explaining- it's a higher calorie price and it means I'm going to be hungry- or doing some extra running for it- but I don't inherently think it's junk- sometimes it's just easier for conversation to say that.
0 -
If she has PCOS and is pre-diabetic, she most certainly DOES have a medical reason to consume less sugar, eat fewer carbs and to try to consume fruits that are lower on the GI index.
I can definitely gain weight by eating fruit--I generally gain ten pounds every June when there is tons of good, cheap, fresh fruit around. I also have these two diseases and have found over time that I can eat a ton of non-starchy vegetables, but that I need to limit myself to one serving of lower-GI fruit a day. My fasting BS is 70 and my A1C is 5.0 because I eat this way.
Bananas are basically nature's cupcakes. A large banana has nutrition that isn't much different from a cupcake in terms of carb content and GI rating--it will spike your blood sugar almost as much. Just because it is natural doesn't make it good for everybody. Can normal, healthy people eat bananas? Of course. However, people with metabolic issues should probably avoid them for the most part or try to have a very small serving when indulging in bananas.
I hate bananas, but LOVE plantains...almost as bad! I have them once or twice a year and gain weight every time.0 -
my first question would be, what is unnatural food?
It would have to be solely made from organic compounds not found in nature. For the life of me, I can't think of one, even though I'm sure tofurkey might be close.0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oEnJfZ9joY
This discussion has been closed.
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