Why the hate on Sugar?
Options
Replies
-
sabalsam844 wrote: »Since most baked goods contain the high fructose corn syrup in them, I would stay away from them.
This is absurd. I used to bake all the time and still bake on occasion and for holiday, and the things I bake (like pie and cookies) do indeed have sugar, so they are covered by the topic of this thread and are demonized by all the "sugar is the devil" posts. And of course they have no HFCS.
Why make assumptions about what people are eating (or that we can't bake)?
0 -
I stick to cane sugar because saccharine, aspartame, sucralose, and stevia all taste like *kitten*.
And, no, I'm not "addicted to sugar." I don't even have a sweet tooth so much. But that's my personal preference not some kind of moralistic statement.
I have a lot of cognitive dissidence with all the "Sugar is EBIL! There are no micros with it!!!!!" Um, no. In fact, the foods richest in micronutrients are vegetables, which are carbohydrates, which is what sugar really is. I suspect this is why you get all the handwringing over "good vs bad" carbs. Because, you need to do mental gymnastics when talking about carbs in order to be able to demonize them while conveniently ignoring the fact that the most nutrient-packed foods out there are predominately carbohydrate composed.
If you don't have issues with your pancreas which compromises your ability to process carbohydrates, there is absolutely nothing wrong with sugar or carbs.
And, seriously people. Temptation and lack of willpower does not an addiction make. I've known compulsive overeaters and people with binge disorders. It's disrespectful to their very real mental health struggle to say it's "just the same" because you can't eat one cookie without wanting another one.0 -
neanderthin wrote: »
Correct, but what they are actually trying to get people to do is reduce highly refined foods, but using sugar as the catalyst. Obviously they mean for people to replace those foods with less refined and highly palatable foods and to consume more whole foods. Unfortunately the media and academia to a lesser degree has taken that platform to either support a bias against a single ingredient or where the media is concerned to sensationalize a story to sell readers and with that said the diet industry is amuck with charlatans. Sugar isn't the problem, it's in the dosage and if someone is consuming copious amounts of sugar, aka refined and highly processed and calorific foods, then it really isn't rocket surgery to conclude they may be consuming too much of it and also come to the conclusion they should reduce it.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »
Is it sugar though? I suspect that someone that binges from sugar would be consuming copious amounts of fruit all day long or just plain sugar, but do they? I'm inclined to think it's the highly palatable foods that have a combination of sugar/fat/salt/refined carbs that people find appealing.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »awasko1218 wrote: »I wonder if it is because when you eat sugar, you want to eat more sugar....and then more sugar to feel like you got your fix...and then MORE, coupled with the fact that the average american eats a lot of processed food, and hidden in processed foods is sugar? So it isn't necessarily the SUGAR that makes people unable to lose weight, but the processed sugar hidden in food that you don't think should even contain sugar that makes you crave more of it, which ruins your willpower, and then you just give up and eat the whole box of chex mix? Er, I mean, not that that's ever happened to me.... Just saying.
Am I the only person on these boards that can eat sugar and not go off on a Oreo cookie bender? I ate 16 grams of white, granulated sugar in my plain oatmeal and I'm not scarfing all the cookies and chocolate in the container right next to me.
No, you are not. I've never binged on anything. But, you also have to be aware that there are a high number of people, on MFP and not, that do have a problem with binge eating. And that sugar is a common trigger for those binges.
That is only one reason to make a general recommendation for cutting sugar though. Most people eat too much sugar and obesity has become epidemic in many parts of the world. That alone is reason enough to suggest cutting back. Too much is bad.
But if you cut sugar, you would likely cut these foods, correct?
This is an entirely different issue than the question about recommending to cut sugar in the OP. In the land of free speech, you can't stop the media from exploiting things. And you can't stop people from not looking beyond the media or from seeing the world as black and white. Just look at the number of people on this site or even this thread that think a recommendation to cut sugar = demonizing sugar.
The recommendation is a good one. What people do with it often isn't.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »
Is it sugar though? I suspect that someone that binges from sugar would be consuming copious amounts of fruit all day long or just plain sugar, but do they? I'm inclined to think it's the highly palatable foods that have a combination of sugar/fat/salt/refined carbs that people find appealing.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »awasko1218 wrote: »I wonder if it is because when you eat sugar, you want to eat more sugar....and then more sugar to feel like you got your fix...and then MORE, coupled with the fact that the average american eats a lot of processed food, and hidden in processed foods is sugar? So it isn't necessarily the SUGAR that makes people unable to lose weight, but the processed sugar hidden in food that you don't think should even contain sugar that makes you crave more of it, which ruins your willpower, and then you just give up and eat the whole box of chex mix? Er, I mean, not that that's ever happened to me.... Just saying.
Am I the only person on these boards that can eat sugar and not go off on a Oreo cookie bender? I ate 16 grams of white, granulated sugar in my plain oatmeal and I'm not scarfing all the cookies and chocolate in the container right next to me.
No, you are not. I've never binged on anything. But, you also have to be aware that there are a high number of people, on MFP and not, that do have a problem with binge eating. And that sugar is a common trigger for those binges.
That is only one reason to make a general recommendation for cutting sugar though. Most people eat too much sugar and obesity has become epidemic in many parts of the world. That alone is reason enough to suggest cutting back. Too much is bad.
But if you cut sugar, you would likely cut these foods, correct?
Based on that rather lopsided advice, there would be no reason to cut the salty/fatty foods, which tend to be just as palatable and cheap and easily available, and thus play into the same issues (which not all overweight people have), if one focused just on sugar. McD's fries aren't exactly healthy or (more to the point) low calorie or nutrient dense, but they don't have sugar.
That's why the endless posts obsessing about sugar and what a demon it is--which clearly are related almost entirely to the current cultural freak out about sugar and some rather mindless "documentaries"--are so tiresome and unhelpful. (We'd have the same posts about fat if the internet and MFP had developed earlier.) Obviously, what someone who wants to cut calories should do is look at their own diet, see where they are consuming excess calories and perhaps failing to consume adequate nutrients, and correct. Mostly this is common sense or the basic stuff we learned in elementary school (MyPlate or the pyramid, eat your vegetables, get some protein). I continue to think that for a great many people doing this seems (a) boring, and (b) unappealing (lots seem to be quite picky), so it's easier to think there's some magic solution such as quitting sugar, which somehow is responsible for them being overweight (couldn't be overeating or personal choices!) and dropping will allow them to be thin without thinking about it.
Of course, if sugar was that big a part of their diet it could lead to a significant deficit and weightloss if they don't add in enough other calories from non sugary foods, but if sugar was a really significant part of their diet and they do nothing but demonize it and decide they can't ever eat it, that seems like a recipe for failure.
But, sure, people should try what they want to try and I could be wrong. Common sense and thinking about overall diet seems easier and more pleasant as a lifelong thing to me, though.
Common sense wouldn't see a recommendation to cut back as demonizing.0 -
grandmama1945 wrote: »Sugar is empty calories. Sugar feeds cancer. Sugar produces candida yeast which causes all kinds of problems. My doctor said he would rather me have a little sugar than the substitutes which, by the way, are bad for you! I use local raw honey in my coffee. It is all about moderation though.
fear monger much ..?
and your do realize that honey has sugar in it...
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »FoCoAlphaNerd wrote: »The idea of "addiction to sugar" always drives me nuts. As cute as those little puff pieces on the today show are, sugar is not more addictive than [insert scare drug here]. Watch someone with a real addiction go through detox and then tell me again how you're a "choco-holic."
for real ..
walk in to AA and say hi my name is so and so and I am addicted to sugar ….and see what the reaction is...
Maybe the same thing that would happen if you walked into an OA meeting and said hi my name is so and so and I am addicted to alcohol??
Or into a cardiologist and said my toe hurts.
I fail to see your point.
if someone truly believes that they are addicted to sugar then they should check themselves into rehab....
Why? People quit smoking without rehab. Is it not addictive?
so no smoker has ever used a 12 step program?
and I was being semi facetious with my point..
However, if sugar is that big of a problem and it ruining your life due to binging and over eating, then yes, check yourself into rehab...
I do not believe in sugar addiction and the literature on the topic if mixed...
0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »rcottonrph1 wrote: »Watch "Fed Up". Sugar is considered a major culprit behind the obesity epidemic. It is also highly inflammatory in the body, and inflammation promotes disease. It isn't an either/or. It is a good idea to avoid both artificial sweeteners and limit added sugar that doesn't come naturally from fruits and vegetables.
Why would anyone flag this comment? It's dead spot-on accurate. So are several others that discuss the issue from a technical perspective.
When I quit eating processed foods and sucrose, I lost 50 pounds. I've said it a number of times (actually now it's 52 pounds as of this morning). I don't miss it at all. No cravings. I have sweets two cubicles away from me and I look at them and laugh. Then I laugh at all the poor saps gravitating to those foods. Then I shake my head when I see their body shapes - all of them are overweight. I was one of them at one time. No more.
There's no use for it. Doesn't mean it should be banned, far from it. Up to people to decide - but fructose with fiber metabolizes much differently than sucrose or anything that's a processed food. I know people who eat processed "diet" foods and they never lose weight. Gotta wonder why? It's not CICO - it's the issue of processed sugar.
What an ignorant thing to say!!!
I eat sugary foods and I am not over weight, plus the fact I lost 121 pounds eating sugary foods.....ohhh and in excellent health as stated by my doctor!!!0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Ok, here's the thing. People here keep telling me with food, context is key. If you get in all of your micronutrient needs, I can understand sugar not being bad. But in general (not MFP members), who does? Without supplements, there are certain micros that are hard to meet unless one is eating very high quantities of some food groups.emily_stew wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
What other explanation would be for why sugar gets so much hate?
Great. You got chased out of the bulking section, now you gotta torture the rest of us out here?ForecasterJason wrote: »
-Fear mongering in the media (usually by some quack attempting to sell something..looking at you, Dr. Oz..)
-Poor education and understanding of nutrition
-A desire for a scapegoat. I'm old enough to remember when fat was the scapegoat. Now it seems to be sugar.
Edit: phrasing
So- I want to add into this- that the more restrictive people get- the more likely they are to have to go out of their way to add back in suppliments.
I.E. people who eat clean diets- and start cutting out huge chunks of food don't get the variety they need. - so Paleo people- anti carb people- anti "junk food" people- body builders also fall into this cateogry as well.
If you eat a variety of foods- and you never demonize anything- never lableling it and are generally hitting your macros through a variety of foods- you don't need to worry about micros.
they are MICROS. Do we know what that word means people MICRO0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »FoCoAlphaNerd wrote: »The idea of "addiction to sugar" always drives me nuts. As cute as those little puff pieces on the today show are, sugar is not more addictive than [insert scare drug here]. Watch someone with a real addiction go through detox and then tell me again how you're a "choco-holic."
for real ..
walk in to AA and say hi my name is so and so and I am addicted to sugar ….and see what the reaction is...
Maybe the same thing that would happen if you walked into an OA meeting and said hi my name is so and so and I am addicted to alcohol??
Or into a cardiologist and said my toe hurts.
I fail to see your point.
if someone truly believes that they are addicted to sugar then they should check themselves into rehab....
Why? People quit smoking without rehab. Is it not addictive?
so no smoker has ever used a 12 step program?
and I was being semi facetious with my point..
However, if sugar is that big of a problem and it ruining your life due to binging and over eating, then yes, check yourself into rehab...
I do not believe in sugar addiction and the literature on the topic if mixed...
So, no overeater ever used a 12 step program (and round and round we go)?0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Ok, here's the thing. People here keep telling me with food, context is key. If you get in all of your micronutrient needs, I can understand sugar not being bad. But in general (not MFP members), who does? Without supplements, there are certain micros that are hard to meet unless one is eating very high quantities of some food groups.emily_stew wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
What other explanation would be for why sugar gets so much hate?
Great. You got chased out of the bulking section, now you gotta torture the rest of us out here?ForecasterJason wrote: »
-Fear mongering in the media (usually by some quack attempting to sell something..looking at you, Dr. Oz..)
-Poor education and understanding of nutrition
-A desire for a scapegoat. I'm old enough to remember when fat was the scapegoat. Now it seems to be sugar.
Edit: phrasing
So- I want to add into this- that the more restrictive people get- the more likely they are to have to go out of their way to add back in suppliments.
I.E. people who eat clean diets- and start cutting out huge chunks of food don't get the variety they need. - so Paleo people- anti carb people- anti "junk food" people- body builders also fall into this cateogry as well.
If you eat a variety of foods- and you never demonize anything- never lableling it and are generally hitting your macros through a variety of foods- you don't need to worry about micros.
they are MICROS. Do we know what that word means people MICRO
Agreed. People who eat the same thing all the time whether clean or not, they won't get the micros in. And people who eat a lot of "dirty" (or processed, or whatever name we're calling it these days) foods are hitting their micros because those foods are fortified.0 -
Because people love it so much and overindulge that it has become the enemy.0
-
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Potassium and to some extent magnesium.ForecasterJason wrote: »
Ok, here's the thing. People here keep telling me with food, context is key. If you get in all of your micronutrient needs, I can understand sugar not being bad. But in general (not MFP members), who does? Without supplements, there are certain micros that are hard to meet unless one is eating very high quantities of some food groups.emily_stew wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
What other explanation would be for why sugar gets so much hate?
Great. You got chased out of the bulking section, now you gotta torture the rest of us out here?ForecasterJason wrote: »
-Fear mongering in the media (usually by some quack attempting to sell something..looking at you, Dr. Oz..)
-Poor education and understanding of nutrition
-A desire for a scapegoat. I'm old enough to remember when fat was the scapegoat. Now it seems to be sugar.
Edit: phrasing
You're moving the goal posts here, but I'll bite. Which micros are hard to meet? Let's forget the average person who doesn't understand nutrition at all (most people don't know what macros are or what they do). Let's say the average person who makes an effort to meet micros while fitting cookies and cake into their macro goal.
If you go off the food entries on MFP you'd think you are short. Unfortunately most the foods logged on here don't contain either (most packaging doesn't contain the information for potassium or magnesium). Most people are probably fairly close without trying. In fact, doctors suggest you don't take a supplement for potassium or magnesium unless you've had blood work that has shown your are deficient since getting too much can cause problems.
That's good to know. I've been working on my micros lately (I'm pretty good with macros in general) and was worried that I can never seem to hit my potassium. Thanks for the info!0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »rcottonrph1 wrote: »Watch "Fed Up". Sugar is considered a major culprit behind the obesity epidemic. It is also highly inflammatory in the body, and inflammation promotes disease. It isn't an either/or. It is a good idea to avoid both artificial sweeteners and limit added sugar that doesn't come naturally from fruits and vegetables.
Why would anyone flag this comment? It's dead spot-on accurate. So are several others that discuss the issue from a technical perspective.
When I quit eating processed foods and sucrose, I lost 50 pounds. I've said it a number of times (actually now it's 52 pounds as of this morning). I don't miss it at all. No cravings. I have sweets two cubicles away from me and I look at them and laugh. Then I laugh at all the poor saps gravitating to those foods. Then I shake my head when I see their body shapes - all of them are overweight. I was one of them at one time. No more.
There's donuts and cookies at my office regularly to celebrate birthdays. All the guys here that gravitate towards the food/sugar are super fit and ripped. People that eat that kind of food aren't necessarily fat, it depends on their total diet and exercise regimen. Luckily I don't have to worry about craving any of it because the food is literally gone within 15 minutes of it being put out...
0 -
Long live the paleo diet.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »
Correct, but what they are actually trying to get people to do is reduce highly refined foods, but using sugar as the catalyst. Obviously they mean for people to replace those foods with less refined and highly palatable foods and to consume more whole foods. Unfortunately the media and academia to a lesser degree has taken that platform to either support a bias against a single ingredient or where the media is concerned to sensationalize a story to sell readers and with that said the diet industry is amuck with charlatans. Sugar isn't the problem, it's in the dosage and if someone is consuming copious amounts of sugar, aka refined and highly processed and calorific foods, then it really isn't rocket surgery to conclude they may be consuming too much of it and also come to the conclusion they should reduce it.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »
Is it sugar though? I suspect that someone that binges from sugar would be consuming copious amounts of fruit all day long or just plain sugar, but do they? I'm inclined to think it's the highly palatable foods that have a combination of sugar/fat/salt/refined carbs that people find appealing.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »awasko1218 wrote: »I wonder if it is because when you eat sugar, you want to eat more sugar....and then more sugar to feel like you got your fix...and then MORE, coupled with the fact that the average american eats a lot of processed food, and hidden in processed foods is sugar? So it isn't necessarily the SUGAR that makes people unable to lose weight, but the processed sugar hidden in food that you don't think should even contain sugar that makes you crave more of it, which ruins your willpower, and then you just give up and eat the whole box of chex mix? Er, I mean, not that that's ever happened to me.... Just saying.
Am I the only person on these boards that can eat sugar and not go off on a Oreo cookie bender? I ate 16 grams of white, granulated sugar in my plain oatmeal and I'm not scarfing all the cookies and chocolate in the container right next to me.
No, you are not. I've never binged on anything. But, you also have to be aware that there are a high number of people, on MFP and not, that do have a problem with binge eating. And that sugar is a common trigger for those binges.
That is only one reason to make a general recommendation for cutting sugar though. Most people eat too much sugar and obesity has become epidemic in many parts of the world. That alone is reason enough to suggest cutting back. Too much is bad.
But if you cut sugar, you would likely cut these foods, correct?
This is an entirely different issue than the question about recommending to cut sugar in the OP. In the land of free speech, you can't stop the media from exploiting things. And you can't stop people from not looking beyond the media or from seeing the world as black and white. Just look at the number of people on this site or even this thread that think a recommendation to cut sugar = demonizing sugar.
The recommendation is a good one. What people do with it often isn't.
0 -
Ok. So assuming no medical issues are present, essentially someone eating like that with a wide variety of foods in their diet should not have to worry about blood work showing a nutrient deficiency, correct?ForecasterJason wrote: »
Ok, here's the thing. People here keep telling me with food, context is key. If you get in all of your micronutrient needs, I can understand sugar not being bad. But in general (not MFP members), who does? Without supplements, there are certain micros that are hard to meet unless one is eating very high quantities of some food groups.emily_stew wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
What other explanation would be for why sugar gets so much hate?
Great. You got chased out of the bulking section, now you gotta torture the rest of us out here?ForecasterJason wrote: »
-Fear mongering in the media (usually by some quack attempting to sell something..looking at you, Dr. Oz..)
-Poor education and understanding of nutrition
-A desire for a scapegoat. I'm old enough to remember when fat was the scapegoat. Now it seems to be sugar.
Edit: phrasing
So- I want to add into this- that the more restrictive people get- the more likely they are to have to go out of their way to add back in suppliments.
I.E. people who eat clean diets- and start cutting out huge chunks of food don't get the variety they need. - so Paleo people- anti carb people- anti "junk food" people- body builders also fall into this cateogry as well.
If you eat a variety of foods- and you never demonize anything- never lableling it and are generally hitting your macros through a variety of foods- you don't need to worry about micros.
they are MICROS. Do we know what that word means people MICRO
0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Ok, here's the thing. People here keep telling me with food, context is key. If you get in all of your micronutrient needs, I can understand sugar not being bad. But in general (not MFP members), who does? Without supplements, there are certain micros that are hard to meet unless one is eating very high quantities of some food groups.emily_stew wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
What other explanation would be for why sugar gets so much hate?
Great. You got chased out of the bulking section, now you gotta torture the rest of us out here?ForecasterJason wrote: »
-Fear mongering in the media (usually by some quack attempting to sell something..looking at you, Dr. Oz..)
-Poor education and understanding of nutrition
-A desire for a scapegoat. I'm old enough to remember when fat was the scapegoat. Now it seems to be sugar.
Edit: phrasing
So- I want to add into this- that the more restrictive people get- the more likely they are to have to go out of their way to add back in suppliments.
I.E. people who eat clean diets- and start cutting out huge chunks of food don't get the variety they need. - so Paleo people- anti carb people- anti "junk food" people- body builders also fall into this cateogry as well.
If you eat a variety of foods- and you never demonize anything- never lableling it and are generally hitting your macros through a variety of foods- you don't need to worry about micros.
they are MICROS. Do we know what that word means people MICRO
Agreed. People who eat the same thing all the time whether clean or not, they won't get the micros in. And people who eat a lot of "dirty" (or processed, or whatever name we're calling it these days) foods are hitting their micros because those foods are fortified.
A snickers and or some ice cream goes a long way- just saying izall.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Common sense wouldn't see a recommendation to cut back as demonizing.
Nor do I. (One ambiguity seems to be whether "cut sugar" means "cut back some" or "cut it out!") I see endless posts about sugar causing all the ills of the world and being the devil as demonizing. Rather literally, even. And I think it's presumptuous for one individual to advise another to cut sugar without having any idea how much the other is eating. It's like the guy who just advised us all to stop eating Hostess cupcakes or the like. Thanks very much, but please don't think you know what I eat. I'm not anti sugar, but I'm snobby about my sweets.)
But I looked back at the OP's post and I think the point stands even if we focus on that (as I actually addressed in my first response). (Note: all the quotes that follow are really loose paraphrases.) The problem with the advice "cut sugar," is that it is commonly misunderstood. The OP asked "why, as it's low in calorie the way I eat it -- only a few calories per tsp -- and tastes good." My first response was "well, what that advice usually means (read the WHO reasoning) is cut low nutrient, treat items with lots of added sugar, as those are typically excess calories and so a good place to start cutting for someone who needs to cut, although hardly the only thing to focus on in the SAD, where plenty of people without a sweet tooth can get plenty of extra calories from other kinds of foods."
But instead of pointing out what everyone already knows--if you are struggling to stay in your calories and eating 5 cookies a day you might want to consider whether you are eating more cookies than is ideal--the focus on "cut sugar!" leads to two bad things quite commonly. (1) People freaking out about the fact that they are over some absurdly low number (like 24 grams) based on some fruit and veggies and dairy, mostly; and (2) people thinking that the issue ISN'T calories, but sugar, such that they can eat whatever so long as it's not that demon sugar and not gain or that they can't lose if they eat sugar or must remove it from their diets.
The OP's point that a little sugar in oatmeal or coffee or (my favorite) rhubarb sauce doesn't actually add many calories is correct, so why should people worry about the fact they'd like to eat oatmeal but don't like it without sugar. Personally, I like it better without sugar, but for those who prefer a little sugar just log it and worry about something more important. Similarly, why should they stress about eating a banana (which we've been informed is evil, because nature's cupcake)? They should not.
AND, if they are going to be honest with themselves, is the problem with fitting in a giant cookie the sugar (which probably provide only a relatively small portion of the calories) or the overall ingredients in that cookie which add up to lots of calories (more from butter and flour) and not a lot of nutrients, so will pose a problem on a restricted calorie diet unless you plan carefully?
Obviously, for most people with a taste for sweet items and who were previously not restricting their diets much, common sense will mean limiting the amount of these kinds of items in their diet. (I said that upthread, as did many others without demonizing sugar.) But that's not the same thing as saying the main problem is sugar and that you should try to eliminate it, which is what the OP was asking about really, as I interpreted his post.
0 -
OP I have a simple answer for you: people tend to look at things through black and white glasses because it makes things easier to deal with. It's easier for some people to say "sugar is evil" and be done with it than it is to say "oftentimes sugar comes packaged into high-calorie nutrient-poor food options" and then have to deal with portions, self-control, moderation and balancing nutrients.0
-
SingRunTing wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Potassium and to some extent magnesium.ForecasterJason wrote: »
Ok, here's the thing. People here keep telling me with food, context is key. If you get in all of your micronutrient needs, I can understand sugar not being bad. But in general (not MFP members), who does? Without supplements, there are certain micros that are hard to meet unless one is eating very high quantities of some food groups.emily_stew wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
What other explanation would be for why sugar gets so much hate?
Great. You got chased out of the bulking section, now you gotta torture the rest of us out here?ForecasterJason wrote: »
-Fear mongering in the media (usually by some quack attempting to sell something..looking at you, Dr. Oz..)
-Poor education and understanding of nutrition
-A desire for a scapegoat. I'm old enough to remember when fat was the scapegoat. Now it seems to be sugar.
Edit: phrasing
You're moving the goal posts here, but I'll bite. Which micros are hard to meet? Let's forget the average person who doesn't understand nutrition at all (most people don't know what macros are or what they do). Let's say the average person who makes an effort to meet micros while fitting cookies and cake into their macro goal.
If you go off the food entries on MFP you'd think you are short. Unfortunately most the foods logged on here don't contain either (most packaging doesn't contain the information for potassium or magnesium). Most people are probably fairly close without trying. In fact, doctors suggest you don't take a supplement for potassium or magnesium unless you've had blood work that has shown your are deficient since getting too much can cause problems.
That's good to know. I've been working on my micros lately (I'm pretty good with macros in general) and was worried that I can never seem to hit my potassium. Thanks for the info!
@singrunting Check this site out: drugs.com/cg/potassium-content-of-foods-list.html
0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Ok, here's the thing. People here keep telling me with food, context is key. If you get in all of your micronutrient needs, I can understand sugar not being bad. But in general (not MFP members), who does? Without supplements, there are certain micros that are hard to meet unless one is eating very high quantities of some food groups.emily_stew wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
What other explanation would be for why sugar gets so much hate?
Great. You got chased out of the bulking section, now you gotta torture the rest of us out here?ForecasterJason wrote: »
-Fear mongering in the media (usually by some quack attempting to sell something..looking at you, Dr. Oz..)
-Poor education and understanding of nutrition
-A desire for a scapegoat. I'm old enough to remember when fat was the scapegoat. Now it seems to be sugar.
Edit: phrasing
So- I want to add into this- that the more restrictive people get- the more likely they are to have to go out of their way to add back in suppliments.
I.E. people who eat clean diets- and start cutting out huge chunks of food don't get the variety they need. - so Paleo people- anti carb people- anti "junk food" people- body builders also fall into this cateogry as well.
If you eat a variety of foods- and you never demonize anything- never lableling it and are generally hitting your macros through a variety of foods- you don't need to worry about micros.
they are MICROS. Do we know what that word means people MICRO
Agreed. People who eat the same thing all the time whether clean or not, they won't get the micros in. And people who eat a lot of "dirty" (or processed, or whatever name we're calling it these days) foods are hitting their micros because those foods are fortified.
A snickers and or some ice cream goes a long way- just saying izall.
What about the snickers ice cream bars? I've never had one, but they seem tempting...0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 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
- 960 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions