*RANT* Sugar, sugar, sugar!

Options
1910111214

Replies

  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    Options
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    ndj1979 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...?

    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.

    so it is not the form/type of sugar..it is the calories one is ingesting?
  • bkhamill
    bkhamill Posts: 1,289 Member
    Options

    bkhamill wrote: »
    *disclaimer - I have not read the responses to this thread, but I can tell you as a diabetic, the carbs you consume are a much more important number than the sugar by itself. I am not sure how MFP calculates sugar but 27g is not nearly enough for them to limit you to. You should consume approx 45g carbs per meal and for me MFP calculates enough into my 1300 calorie goal to allow this.


    I like all the people white knighting diabetics, but the actual diabetics are telling the OP to not track sugar and focus only on carbs...

    I am not sure what you mean by white knighting.
  • auddii
    auddii Posts: 15,357 Member
    edited January 2015
    Options
    bkhamill wrote: »
    bkhamill wrote: »
    *disclaimer - I have not read the responses to this thread, but I can tell you as a diabetic, the carbs you consume are a much more important number than the sugar by itself. I am not sure how MFP calculates sugar but 27g is not nearly enough for them to limit you to. You should consume approx 45g carbs per meal and for me MFP calculates enough into my 1300 calorie goal to allow this.


    I like all the people white knighting diabetics, but the actual diabetics are telling the OP to not track sugar and focus only on carbs...

    I am not sure what you mean by white knighting.

    Many people have said not to track sugar. Many other people went crazy and said of course people need to track sugar and reduce it, especially since some medical conditions (the two named have been diabetes and insulin resistance) have to reduce sugar so they must track it.

    White knight essentially means defending someone else, but they're failing at it. My mom is diabetic, and like you she has never tracked sugar, she tracks carbs. People are falling over themselves to prove a point by using diabetics as evidence, and they're just wrong.
  • Hornsby
    Hornsby Posts: 10,322 Member
    Options
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    ndj1979 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...?

    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.

    so it is not the form/type of sugar..it is the calories one is ingesting?

    Who would've thunk it?
  • runner475
    runner475 Posts: 1,236 Member
    Options
    JoRocka wrote: »
    runner475 wrote: »
    JoRocka wrote: »
    natural does not automatically mean better.

    Are we talking about food? Can you give an example of where this would fit?

    steak-chocolate- snickers- granola

    processing anything doesn't mean it's healthier or better.

    Are you sure this is not typo? Because I thought we were talking about "natural". Where did this reference to processing come from?
  • dbmata
    dbmata Posts: 12,950 Member
    edited January 2015
    Options
    dbmata wrote: »
    runner475 wrote: »
    JoRocka wrote: »
    natural does not automatically mean better.

    Are we talking about food? Can you give an example of where this would fit?

    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.

    Why would food have to be solely made from organic compounds not found in nature to be unnatural? Seems like any type synthetic, artifical or man-altered component would make it unnatural.
    so you're only eating RAW wild forage? Granted, removing something from a stream, or off a bush is making it a man altered component...

    Come now.
  • JeffseekingV
    JeffseekingV Posts: 3,165 Member
    Options
    clean eating is a myth. Or not, or was supposed to be, or is but isn't
  • dbmata
    dbmata Posts: 12,950 Member
    Options
    Clean eating is big foot.
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,575 Member
    Options
    dbmata wrote: »
    dbmata wrote: »
    runner475 wrote: »
    JoRocka wrote: »
    natural does not automatically mean better.

    Are we talking about food? Can you give an example of where this would fit?

    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.

    Why would food have to be solely made from organic compounds not found in nature to be unnatural? Seems like any type synthetic, artifical or man-altered component would make it unnatural.
    so you're only eating RAW wild forage? Granted, removing something from a stream, or off a bush is making it a man altered component...

    Come now.

    ?? I don't see how what I eat has anything to do with this. But then I don't see how picking something up alters it either. I'm confused. :#
  • Hornsby
    Hornsby Posts: 10,322 Member
    Options
    But is a big foot a big foot, or is it a yeti sometimes?
  • dbmata
    dbmata Posts: 12,950 Member
    Options
    Hornsby wrote: »
    But is a big foot a big foot, or is it a yeti sometimes?

    Squatch out! We're at an impasse.
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,575 Member
    Options
    Hornsby wrote: »
    But is a big foot a big foot, or is it a yeti sometimes?

    Silly! Bigfoot is found in northwestern America. Yeti in the Himalayas.
  • JoRocka
    JoRocka Posts: 17,525 Member
    Options
    runner475 wrote: »
    JoRocka wrote: »
    runner475 wrote: »
    JoRocka wrote: »
    natural does not automatically mean better.

    Are we talking about food? Can you give an example of where this would fit?

    steak-chocolate- snickers- granola

    processing anything doesn't mean it's healthier or better.

    Are you sure this is not typo? Because I thought we were talking about "natural". Where did this reference to processing come from?

    either I'm in a deeply confused coffee state- or the fact that typicaly definition of 'natural' excludes processing... and ultimately neither of those things determine if it's good or not for you.

    I mean hell whey is pretty processed- but I'd say protein powder is definitely not an "unnatural" substance-it's dehydrated whey and it's considered a widely accepted "health" addition.

    so I guess my point is a "natural" label =/= healthy or unhealthy much like and a "processed' label =/= healthy- or unhealthy.
  • Hornsby
    Hornsby Posts: 10,322 Member
    Options
    dbmata wrote: »
    Hornsby wrote: »
    But is a big foot a big foot, or is it a yeti sometimes?

    Squatch out! We're at an impasse.

    I'm so sad that I can't think of something to keep that going, but that was funny...

  • dbmata
    dbmata Posts: 12,950 Member
    Options
    dbmata wrote: »
    dbmata wrote: »
    runner475 wrote: »
    JoRocka wrote: »
    natural does not automatically mean better.

    Are we talking about food? Can you give an example of where this would fit?

    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.

    Why would food have to be solely made from organic compounds not found in nature to be unnatural? Seems like any type synthetic, artifical or man-altered component would make it unnatural.
    so you're only eating RAW wild forage? Granted, removing something from a stream, or off a bush is making it a man altered component...

    Come now.

    ?? I don't see how what I eat has anything to do with this. But then I don't see how picking something up alters it either. I'm confused. :#
    Removal from "natural" state is a "man" alteration to said component.

    Most if not all items in the supermarket are man altered, be it no longer living, processed for purchase, and heavily modified due to husbandry.

    Seriously, any type of "synthetic", artificial, or man alteration turns something unnatural? That means, hands down, EVERY SINGLE ITEM in our food system is unnatural by your black and white, and fairly unreasonable definition.

    Then you mention synthetics... ok, I use sodium nitrate to preserve meat. Does that make the meat unnatural?
    I can do the same thing, but with a greater chance of failure by using saltpeter or spinach. Would that make it "natural"?

    Then we have the application of "unnatural" sources of heat, like my stove, and my oven. Now the food is no longer natural... It just doesn't work.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    runner475 wrote: »
    MrM27 wrote: »
    runner475 wrote: »
    MrM27 wrote: »

    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 = <3
    Why should we? Is this suddenly a diabetic forum? If someone is ranting about sugar, why does it give only diabetics the right to chime in?

    If that's the logic then should all diabetics stay out of non diabetic disorder threads?

    Like I said to avoid unnecessary headaches. I would not bother going in a "I want to be gluten free because gluten is bad! Rant Rant Rant" forum. But again that's just me.

    You do know that this is NOT an "I want to be sugar free, rant! rant!" thread," right? I mean, read OP's initial post and early comments.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited January 2015
    Options
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    ndj1979 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...?

    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.

    so it is not the form/type of sugar..it is the calories one is ingesting?

    Yep, calories and nutrients.

    So if you are logging (or otherwise staying at/moving toward an appropriate weight) and getting sufficient nutrients, wouldn't worry about it.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    dbmata wrote: »
    Clean eating is big foot.

    Clean eating is people!
  • dbmata
    dbmata Posts: 12,950 Member
    Options