Cutting sugar in diet
Replies
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Yep. EVERYONE should limit added sugars.herrspoons wrote: »I think everyone should limit added sugars. Limiting is, after all, the very essence of moderation.
Not sure why people find that one tricky.
But if you already limit added sugars it's silly to make that the main definition as to whether you are healthy.
Sorry? I'm not making the connection. Can you say more?
If you already eat a limited amount of added sugars (as I do) it's silly to claim that you would have a healthier diet by limiting added sugars more or by reducing the amount of added sugars you eat. That suggests that for everyone less is always better and none is the ideal, and I don't think that's true. There are better things to focus on depending on one's diet, like eating more veggies.
Did I say that you should limit them more to be healthy?
The typical American sure needs to. You probably don't need to. I don't need to.
Should we aim for "no added sugars?" Possibly, but probably not. Granted, I'd say we should aim for more honey and juice as our sweeteners, less HFCS. But as we know, I have a bias there: I think HFCS bad for us.
I already avoid HFCS, so again one-size-fits-all advice wouldn't work. Which is all I was saying.
I'd like to focus on what eating a good, nutritious diet requires, and not feed into weird scapegoating about eliminating foods. If one eats a good nutritious diet, one is not going to be eating excessive amounts of sugar, and if you read the WHO rationale about limiting sugar (which is quite sensible) its generally about making sure that you get a good balanced diet and not excessive calories. That's why it's a shame that the weird sugar fear that people get instead causes them to worry about eating fruit and dairy, which aren't even included in the WHO's added sugar limit, of course.
HFCS, I love this CRAP!
In everything.
Read your labels and you will barf.
Thank God for corn growers...
The molecular structure close to that of alcohol and the liver doesn't process it like sugar, real sugar that is...
Bad MOJO.0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
I think get it. Just because someone limits sugars does not mean they are necessarily healthy.lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Yep. EVERYONE should limit added sugars.herrspoons wrote: »I think everyone should limit added sugars. Limiting is, after all, the very essence of moderation.
Not sure why people find that one tricky.
But if you already limit added sugars it's silly to make that the main definition as to whether you are healthy.
i agree that limiting added sugars is a way to moderate, but so is limiting any food. For example, I don't need two servings of meat anymore than I need six teaspoons of sugar in my coffee, because I want overall balance. This has nothing to do with any foods being good or bad, it's just a method of trying to keep a calorie deficit if losing, or not going over TDEE when maintaining.
oh. Did someone say cutting sugar was the essence of being healthy? I must have missed that.
The government has now explicitly said to limit added sugar, for weight and for health. The WHO has said to limit added sugars for health. I can see why there are even more sugar threads than usual.
I think I went out on a limb.
The "government" is talking about moderation, which is in the eye of the beholder. We all make the choice what to moderate, as well as how to moderate.
I love my sugary stuff, have lost plenty of weight eating the sweet stuff, and have been maintaining for well over a year. The thing is I don't go hog wild every day like I used to, I just hog wild sometimes, but work hard to make sure my end week calories are reasonably close to what I need. It's not perfect, but it's doable.
I would wager that 99% of the government is overweight...
Don't let them guide you
I'd assume that "government" here is a metonymy of sorts. I'd assume they mean the folks on the government panel who've been studying mountains of data. I'll google a few, but I'm figuring 99% of that panel isn't overweight.
I figure 99% don't know what the hell they are talking about.
Beside the world is going to end any day now because of global warming...
All those stupid scientists trying to act like they understand science...
(97% agree on global warming. It's a thing.)
0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
I think get it. Just because someone limits sugars does not mean they are necessarily healthy.lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Yep. EVERYONE should limit added sugars.herrspoons wrote: »I think everyone should limit added sugars. Limiting is, after all, the very essence of moderation.
Not sure why people find that one tricky.
But if you already limit added sugars it's silly to make that the main definition as to whether you are healthy.
i agree that limiting added sugars is a way to moderate, but so is limiting any food. For example, I don't need two servings of meat anymore than I need six teaspoons of sugar in my coffee, because I want overall balance. This has nothing to do with any foods being good or bad, it's just a method of trying to keep a calorie deficit if losing, or not going over TDEE when maintaining.
oh. Did someone say cutting sugar was the essence of being healthy? I must have missed that.
The government has now explicitly said to limit added sugar, for weight and for health. The WHO has said to limit added sugars for health. I can see why there are even more sugar threads than usual.
I think I went out on a limb.
The "government" is talking about moderation, which is in the eye of the beholder. We all make the choice what to moderate, as well as how to moderate.
I love my sugary stuff, have lost plenty of weight eating the sweet stuff, and have been maintaining for well over a year. The thing is I don't go hog wild every day like I used to, I just hog wild sometimes, but work hard to make sure my end week calories are reasonably close to what I need. It's not perfect, but it's doable.
I would wager that 99% of the government is overweight...
Don't let them guide you
I'd assume that "government" here is a metonymy of sorts. I'd assume they mean the folks on the government panel who've been studying mountains of data. I'll google a few, but I'm figuring 99% of that panel isn't overweight.
I figure 99% don't know what the hell they are talking about.
Beside the world is going to end any day now because of global warming...
All those stupid scientists trying to act like they understand science...
(97% agree on global warming. It's a thing.)
But snow. No really, a congressman apparently actually tried that argument (complete with snowball for proof)...0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
I think get it. Just because someone limits sugars does not mean they are necessarily healthy.lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Yep. EVERYONE should limit added sugars.herrspoons wrote: »I think everyone should limit added sugars. Limiting is, after all, the very essence of moderation.
Not sure why people find that one tricky.
But if you already limit added sugars it's silly to make that the main definition as to whether you are healthy.
i agree that limiting added sugars is a way to moderate, but so is limiting any food. For example, I don't need two servings of meat anymore than I need six teaspoons of sugar in my coffee, because I want overall balance. This has nothing to do with any foods being good or bad, it's just a method of trying to keep a calorie deficit if losing, or not going over TDEE when maintaining.
oh. Did someone say cutting sugar was the essence of being healthy? I must have missed that.
The government has now explicitly said to limit added sugar, for weight and for health. The WHO has said to limit added sugars for health. I can see why there are even more sugar threads than usual.
I think I went out on a limb.
The "government" is talking about moderation, which is in the eye of the beholder. We all make the choice what to moderate, as well as how to moderate.
I love my sugary stuff, have lost plenty of weight eating the sweet stuff, and have been maintaining for well over a year. The thing is I don't go hog wild every day like I used to, I just hog wild sometimes, but work hard to make sure my end week calories are reasonably close to what I need. It's not perfect, but it's doable.
I would wager that 99% of the government is overweight...
Don't let them guide you
I'd assume that "government" here is a metonymy of sorts. I'd assume they mean the folks on the government panel who've been studying mountains of data. I'll google a few, but I'm figuring 99% of that panel isn't overweight.
I figure 99% don't know what the hell they are talking about.
Beside the world is going to end any day now because of global warming...
All those stupid scientists trying to act like they understand science...
(97% agree on global warming. It's a thing.)
yea, like all those 'scientists' who got caught fudging the numbers on global warming...
and I would really love an actual citation on that 97% number....0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
I think get it. Just because someone limits sugars does not mean they are necessarily healthy.lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Yep. EVERYONE should limit added sugars.herrspoons wrote: »I think everyone should limit added sugars. Limiting is, after all, the very essence of moderation.
Not sure why people find that one tricky.
But if you already limit added sugars it's silly to make that the main definition as to whether you are healthy.
i agree that limiting added sugars is a way to moderate, but so is limiting any food. For example, I don't need two servings of meat anymore than I need six teaspoons of sugar in my coffee, because I want overall balance. This has nothing to do with any foods being good or bad, it's just a method of trying to keep a calorie deficit if losing, or not going over TDEE when maintaining.
oh. Did someone say cutting sugar was the essence of being healthy? I must have missed that.
The government has now explicitly said to limit added sugar, for weight and for health. The WHO has said to limit added sugars for health. I can see why there are even more sugar threads than usual.
I think I went out on a limb.
The "government" is talking about moderation, which is in the eye of the beholder. We all make the choice what to moderate, as well as how to moderate.
I love my sugary stuff, have lost plenty of weight eating the sweet stuff, and have been maintaining for well over a year. The thing is I don't go hog wild every day like I used to, I just hog wild sometimes, but work hard to make sure my end week calories are reasonably close to what I need. It's not perfect, but it's doable.
I would wager that 99% of the government is overweight...
Don't let them guide you
I'd assume that "government" here is a metonymy of sorts. I'd assume they mean the folks on the government panel who've been studying mountains of data. I'll google a few, but I'm figuring 99% of that panel isn't overweight.
I figure 99% don't know what the hell they are talking about.
Beside the world is going to end any day now because of global warming...
All those stupid scientists trying to act like they understand science...
(97% agree on global warming. It's a thing.)
But snow. No really, a congressman apparently actually tried that argument (complete with snowball for proof)...
I saw that, I was lmao!! That look he gave when he tossed the snowball to the chairman, like oh snap, lol
0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
I think get it. Just because someone limits sugars does not mean they are necessarily healthy.lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Yep. EVERYONE should limit added sugars.herrspoons wrote: »I think everyone should limit added sugars. Limiting is, after all, the very essence of moderation.
Not sure why people find that one tricky.
But if you already limit added sugars it's silly to make that the main definition as to whether you are healthy.
i agree that limiting added sugars is a way to moderate, but so is limiting any food. For example, I don't need two servings of meat anymore than I need six teaspoons of sugar in my coffee, because I want overall balance. This has nothing to do with any foods being good or bad, it's just a method of trying to keep a calorie deficit if losing, or not going over TDEE when maintaining.
oh. Did someone say cutting sugar was the essence of being healthy? I must have missed that.
The government has now explicitly said to limit added sugar, for weight and for health. The WHO has said to limit added sugars for health. I can see why there are even more sugar threads than usual.
I think I went out on a limb.
The "government" is talking about moderation, which is in the eye of the beholder. We all make the choice what to moderate, as well as how to moderate.
I love my sugary stuff, have lost plenty of weight eating the sweet stuff, and have been maintaining for well over a year. The thing is I don't go hog wild every day like I used to, I just hog wild sometimes, but work hard to make sure my end week calories are reasonably close to what I need. It's not perfect, but it's doable.
I would wager that 99% of the government is overweight...
Don't let them guide you
I'd assume that "government" here is a metonymy of sorts. I'd assume they mean the folks on the government panel who've been studying mountains of data. I'll google a few, but I'm figuring 99% of that panel isn't overweight.
I figure 99% don't know what the hell they are talking about.
Beside the world is going to end any day now because of global warming...
All those stupid scientists trying to act like they understand science...
(97% agree on global warming. It's a thing.)
yea, like all those 'scientists' who got caught fudging the numbers on global warming...
and I would really love an actual citation on that 97% number....
Dude, look it up. I'm not even having this debate, it is settled science. There is no real debate within the scientific community.
0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
I think get it. Just because someone limits sugars does not mean they are necessarily healthy.lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Yep. EVERYONE should limit added sugars.herrspoons wrote: »I think everyone should limit added sugars. Limiting is, after all, the very essence of moderation.
Not sure why people find that one tricky.
But if you already limit added sugars it's silly to make that the main definition as to whether you are healthy.
i agree that limiting added sugars is a way to moderate, but so is limiting any food. For example, I don't need two servings of meat anymore than I need six teaspoons of sugar in my coffee, because I want overall balance. This has nothing to do with any foods being good or bad, it's just a method of trying to keep a calorie deficit if losing, or not going over TDEE when maintaining.
oh. Did someone say cutting sugar was the essence of being healthy? I must have missed that.
The government has now explicitly said to limit added sugar, for weight and for health. The WHO has said to limit added sugars for health. I can see why there are even more sugar threads than usual.
I think I went out on a limb.
The "government" is talking about moderation, which is in the eye of the beholder. We all make the choice what to moderate, as well as how to moderate.
I love my sugary stuff, have lost plenty of weight eating the sweet stuff, and have been maintaining for well over a year. The thing is I don't go hog wild every day like I used to, I just hog wild sometimes, but work hard to make sure my end week calories are reasonably close to what I need. It's not perfect, but it's doable.
I would wager that 99% of the government is overweight...
Don't let them guide you
I'd assume that "government" here is a metonymy of sorts. I'd assume they mean the folks on the government panel who've been studying mountains of data. I'll google a few, but I'm figuring 99% of that panel isn't overweight.
I figure 99% don't know what the hell they are talking about.
Beside the world is going to end any day now because of global warming...
All those stupid scientists trying to act like they understand science...
(97% agree on global warming. It's a thing.)
yea, like all those 'scientists' who got caught fudging the numbers on global warming...
and I would really love an actual citation on that 97% number....
Dude, look it up. I'm not even having this debate, it is settled science. There is no real debate within the scientific community.
LOL OK ...
your the one making the 97% claim not me...
and if it is so settled then why did they have to fake numbers to prove their point...?
when ever someone says "it is settled" that just means that they have no additional information to contribute.0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
I think get it. Just because someone limits sugars does not mean they are necessarily healthy.lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Yep. EVERYONE should limit added sugars.herrspoons wrote: »I think everyone should limit added sugars. Limiting is, after all, the very essence of moderation.
Not sure why people find that one tricky.
But if you already limit added sugars it's silly to make that the main definition as to whether you are healthy.
i agree that limiting added sugars is a way to moderate, but so is limiting any food. For example, I don't need two servings of meat anymore than I need six teaspoons of sugar in my coffee, because I want overall balance. This has nothing to do with any foods being good or bad, it's just a method of trying to keep a calorie deficit if losing, or not going over TDEE when maintaining.
oh. Did someone say cutting sugar was the essence of being healthy? I must have missed that.
The government has now explicitly said to limit added sugar, for weight and for health. The WHO has said to limit added sugars for health. I can see why there are even more sugar threads than usual.
I think I went out on a limb.
The "government" is talking about moderation, which is in the eye of the beholder. We all make the choice what to moderate, as well as how to moderate.
I love my sugary stuff, have lost plenty of weight eating the sweet stuff, and have been maintaining for well over a year. The thing is I don't go hog wild every day like I used to, I just hog wild sometimes, but work hard to make sure my end week calories are reasonably close to what I need. It's not perfect, but it's doable.
I would wager that 99% of the government is overweight...
Don't let them guide you
I'd assume that "government" here is a metonymy of sorts. I'd assume they mean the folks on the government panel who've been studying mountains of data. I'll google a few, but I'm figuring 99% of that panel isn't overweight.
I figure 99% don't know what the hell they are talking about.
Beside the world is going to end any day now because of global warming...
All those stupid scientists trying to act like they understand science...
(97% agree on global warming. It's a thing.)
yea, like all those 'scientists' who got caught fudging the numbers on global warming...
and I would really love an actual citation on that 97% number....
Dude, look it up. I'm not even having this debate, it is settled science. There is no real debate within the scientific community.
LOL OK ...
your the one making the 97% claim not me...
and if it is so settled then why did they have to fake numbers to prove their point...?
when ever someone says "it is settled" that just means that they have no additional information to contribute.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
0 -
herrspoons wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
I think get it. Just because someone limits sugars does not mean they are necessarily healthy.lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Yep. EVERYONE should limit added sugars.herrspoons wrote: »I think everyone should limit added sugars. Limiting is, after all, the very essence of moderation.
Not sure why people find that one tricky.
But if you already limit added sugars it's silly to make that the main definition as to whether you are healthy.
i agree that limiting added sugars is a way to moderate, but so is limiting any food. For example, I don't need two servings of meat anymore than I need six teaspoons of sugar in my coffee, because I want overall balance. This has nothing to do with any foods being good or bad, it's just a method of trying to keep a calorie deficit if losing, or not going over TDEE when maintaining.
oh. Did someone say cutting sugar was the essence of being healthy? I must have missed that.
The government has now explicitly said to limit added sugar, for weight and for health. The WHO has said to limit added sugars for health. I can see why there are even more sugar threads than usual.
I think I went out on a limb.
The "government" is talking about moderation, which is in the eye of the beholder. We all make the choice what to moderate, as well as how to moderate.
I love my sugary stuff, have lost plenty of weight eating the sweet stuff, and have been maintaining for well over a year. The thing is I don't go hog wild every day like I used to, I just hog wild sometimes, but work hard to make sure my end week calories are reasonably close to what I need. It's not perfect, but it's doable.
I would wager that 99% of the government is overweight...
Don't let them guide you
I'd assume that "government" here is a metonymy of sorts. I'd assume they mean the folks on the government panel who've been studying mountains of data. I'll google a few, but I'm figuring 99% of that panel isn't overweight.
I figure 99% don't know what the hell they are talking about.
Beside the world is going to end any day now because of global warming...
All those stupid scientists trying to act like they understand science...
(97% agree on global warming. It's a thing.)
yea, like all those 'scientists' who got caught fudging the numbers on global warming...
and I would really love an actual citation on that 97% number....
Dude, look it up. I'm not even having this debate, it is settled science. There is no real debate within the scientific community.
Climate change is a reality. What we need to understand us how much of it is human mediated, and what the likely impact will be.
well, I agree with natural warming and cooling cycles....
I don't agree with all the carbon demonizing...
0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
I think get it. Just because someone limits sugars does not mean they are necessarily healthy.lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Yep. EVERYONE should limit added sugars.herrspoons wrote: »I think everyone should limit added sugars. Limiting is, after all, the very essence of moderation.
Not sure why people find that one tricky.
But if you already limit added sugars it's silly to make that the main definition as to whether you are healthy.
i agree that limiting added sugars is a way to moderate, but so is limiting any food. For example, I don't need two servings of meat anymore than I need six teaspoons of sugar in my coffee, because I want overall balance. This has nothing to do with any foods being good or bad, it's just a method of trying to keep a calorie deficit if losing, or not going over TDEE when maintaining.
oh. Did someone say cutting sugar was the essence of being healthy? I must have missed that.
The government has now explicitly said to limit added sugar, for weight and for health. The WHO has said to limit added sugars for health. I can see why there are even more sugar threads than usual.
I think I went out on a limb.
The "government" is talking about moderation, which is in the eye of the beholder. We all make the choice what to moderate, as well as how to moderate.
I love my sugary stuff, have lost plenty of weight eating the sweet stuff, and have been maintaining for well over a year. The thing is I don't go hog wild every day like I used to, I just hog wild sometimes, but work hard to make sure my end week calories are reasonably close to what I need. It's not perfect, but it's doable.
I would wager that 99% of the government is overweight...
Don't let them guide you
I'd assume that "government" here is a metonymy of sorts. I'd assume they mean the folks on the government panel who've been studying mountains of data. I'll google a few, but I'm figuring 99% of that panel isn't overweight.
I figure 99% don't know what the hell they are talking about.
Beside the world is going to end any day now because of global warming...
All those stupid scientists trying to act like they understand science...
(97% agree on global warming. It's a thing.)
yea, like all those 'scientists' who got caught fudging the numbers on global warming...
and I would really love an actual citation on that 97% number....
Dude, look it up. I'm not even having this debate, it is settled science. There is no real debate within the scientific community.
LOL OK ...
your the one making the 97% claim not me...
and if it is so settled then why did they have to fake numbers to prove their point...?
when ever someone says "it is settled" that just means that they have no additional information to contribute.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
I love how it says "very likely" ....0 -
herrspoons wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
I think get it. Just because someone limits sugars does not mean they are necessarily healthy.lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Yep. EVERYONE should limit added sugars.herrspoons wrote: »I think everyone should limit added sugars. Limiting is, after all, the very essence of moderation.
Not sure why people find that one tricky.
But if you already limit added sugars it's silly to make that the main definition as to whether you are healthy.
i agree that limiting added sugars is a way to moderate, but so is limiting any food. For example, I don't need two servings of meat anymore than I need six teaspoons of sugar in my coffee, because I want overall balance. This has nothing to do with any foods being good or bad, it's just a method of trying to keep a calorie deficit if losing, or not going over TDEE when maintaining.
oh. Did someone say cutting sugar was the essence of being healthy? I must have missed that.
The government has now explicitly said to limit added sugar, for weight and for health. The WHO has said to limit added sugars for health. I can see why there are even more sugar threads than usual.
I think I went out on a limb.
The "government" is talking about moderation, which is in the eye of the beholder. We all make the choice what to moderate, as well as how to moderate.
I love my sugary stuff, have lost plenty of weight eating the sweet stuff, and have been maintaining for well over a year. The thing is I don't go hog wild every day like I used to, I just hog wild sometimes, but work hard to make sure my end week calories are reasonably close to what I need. It's not perfect, but it's doable.
I would wager that 99% of the government is overweight...
Don't let them guide you
I'd assume that "government" here is a metonymy of sorts. I'd assume they mean the folks on the government panel who've been studying mountains of data. I'll google a few, but I'm figuring 99% of that panel isn't overweight.
I figure 99% don't know what the hell they are talking about.
Beside the world is going to end any day now because of global warming...
All those stupid scientists trying to act like they understand science...
(97% agree on global warming. It's a thing.)
yea, like all those 'scientists' who got caught fudging the numbers on global warming...
and I would really love an actual citation on that 97% number....
Dude, look it up. I'm not even having this debate, it is settled science. There is no real debate within the scientific community.
Climate change is a reality. What we need to understand us how much of it is human mediated, and what the likely impact will be.
well, I agree with natural warming and cooling cycles....
I don't agree with all the carbon demonizing...
Then you are going against the scientific community, and with the pseudo-scientists and industry lobbyists.
0 -
herrspoons wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
I think get it. Just because someone limits sugars does not mean they are necessarily healthy.lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Yep. EVERYONE should limit added sugars.herrspoons wrote: »I think everyone should limit added sugars. Limiting is, after all, the very essence of moderation.
Not sure why people find that one tricky.
But if you already limit added sugars it's silly to make that the main definition as to whether you are healthy.
i agree that limiting added sugars is a way to moderate, but so is limiting any food. For example, I don't need two servings of meat anymore than I need six teaspoons of sugar in my coffee, because I want overall balance. This has nothing to do with any foods being good or bad, it's just a method of trying to keep a calorie deficit if losing, or not going over TDEE when maintaining.
oh. Did someone say cutting sugar was the essence of being healthy? I must have missed that.
The government has now explicitly said to limit added sugar, for weight and for health. The WHO has said to limit added sugars for health. I can see why there are even more sugar threads than usual.
I think I went out on a limb.
The "government" is talking about moderation, which is in the eye of the beholder. We all make the choice what to moderate, as well as how to moderate.
I love my sugary stuff, have lost plenty of weight eating the sweet stuff, and have been maintaining for well over a year. The thing is I don't go hog wild every day like I used to, I just hog wild sometimes, but work hard to make sure my end week calories are reasonably close to what I need. It's not perfect, but it's doable.
I would wager that 99% of the government is overweight...
Don't let them guide you
I'd assume that "government" here is a metonymy of sorts. I'd assume they mean the folks on the government panel who've been studying mountains of data. I'll google a few, but I'm figuring 99% of that panel isn't overweight.
I figure 99% don't know what the hell they are talking about.
Beside the world is going to end any day now because of global warming...
All those stupid scientists trying to act like they understand science...
(97% agree on global warming. It's a thing.)
yea, like all those 'scientists' who got caught fudging the numbers on global warming...
and I would really love an actual citation on that 97% number....
Dude, look it up. I'm not even having this debate, it is settled science. There is no real debate within the scientific community.
Climate change is a reality. What we need to understand us how much of it is human mediated, and what the likely impact will be.
True
0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
I think get it. Just because someone limits sugars does not mean they are necessarily healthy.lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Yep. EVERYONE should limit added sugars.herrspoons wrote: »I think everyone should limit added sugars. Limiting is, after all, the very essence of moderation.
Not sure why people find that one tricky.
But if you already limit added sugars it's silly to make that the main definition as to whether you are healthy.
i agree that limiting added sugars is a way to moderate, but so is limiting any food. For example, I don't need two servings of meat anymore than I need six teaspoons of sugar in my coffee, because I want overall balance. This has nothing to do with any foods being good or bad, it's just a method of trying to keep a calorie deficit if losing, or not going over TDEE when maintaining.
oh. Did someone say cutting sugar was the essence of being healthy? I must have missed that.
The government has now explicitly said to limit added sugar, for weight and for health. The WHO has said to limit added sugars for health. I can see why there are even more sugar threads than usual.
I think I went out on a limb.
The "government" is talking about moderation, which is in the eye of the beholder. We all make the choice what to moderate, as well as how to moderate.
I love my sugary stuff, have lost plenty of weight eating the sweet stuff, and have been maintaining for well over a year. The thing is I don't go hog wild every day like I used to, I just hog wild sometimes, but work hard to make sure my end week calories are reasonably close to what I need. It's not perfect, but it's doable.
I would wager that 99% of the government is overweight...
Don't let them guide you
I'd assume that "government" here is a metonymy of sorts. I'd assume they mean the folks on the government panel who've been studying mountains of data. I'll google a few, but I'm figuring 99% of that panel isn't overweight.
I figure 99% don't know what the hell they are talking about.
Beside the world is going to end any day now because of global warming...
All those stupid scientists trying to act like they understand science...
(97% agree on global warming. It's a thing.)
yea, like all those 'scientists' who got caught fudging the numbers on global warming...
and I would really love an actual citation on that 97% number....
Dude, look it up. I'm not even having this debate, it is settled science. There is no real debate within the scientific community.
LOL OK ...
your the one making the 97% claim not me...
and if it is so settled then why did they have to fake numbers to prove their point...?
when ever someone says "it is settled" that just means that they have no additional information to contribute.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
I love how it says "very likely" ....
as a counterpoint..here is the debunking of that "claim"...
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240527023034803045795784628135531360 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
I think get it. Just because someone limits sugars does not mean they are necessarily healthy.lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Yep. EVERYONE should limit added sugars.herrspoons wrote: »I think everyone should limit added sugars. Limiting is, after all, the very essence of moderation.
Not sure why people find that one tricky.
But if you already limit added sugars it's silly to make that the main definition as to whether you are healthy.
i agree that limiting added sugars is a way to moderate, but so is limiting any food. For example, I don't need two servings of meat anymore than I need six teaspoons of sugar in my coffee, because I want overall balance. This has nothing to do with any foods being good or bad, it's just a method of trying to keep a calorie deficit if losing, or not going over TDEE when maintaining.
oh. Did someone say cutting sugar was the essence of being healthy? I must have missed that.
The government has now explicitly said to limit added sugar, for weight and for health. The WHO has said to limit added sugars for health. I can see why there are even more sugar threads than usual.
I think I went out on a limb.
The "government" is talking about moderation, which is in the eye of the beholder. We all make the choice what to moderate, as well as how to moderate.
I love my sugary stuff, have lost plenty of weight eating the sweet stuff, and have been maintaining for well over a year. The thing is I don't go hog wild every day like I used to, I just hog wild sometimes, but work hard to make sure my end week calories are reasonably close to what I need. It's not perfect, but it's doable.
I would wager that 99% of the government is overweight...
Don't let them guide you
I'd assume that "government" here is a metonymy of sorts. I'd assume they mean the folks on the government panel who've been studying mountains of data. I'll google a few, but I'm figuring 99% of that panel isn't overweight.
I figure 99% don't know what the hell they are talking about.
Beside the world is going to end any day now because of global warming...
All those stupid scientists trying to act like they understand science...
(97% agree on global warming. It's a thing.)
yea, like all those 'scientists' who got caught fudging the numbers on global warming...
and I would really love an actual citation on that 97% number....
Dude, look it up. I'm not even having this debate, it is settled science. There is no real debate within the scientific community.
LOL OK ...
your the one making the 97% claim not me...
and if it is so settled then why did they have to fake numbers to prove their point...?
when ever someone says "it is settled" that just means that they have no additional information to contribute.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
I love how it says "very likely" ....
as a counterpoint..here is the debunking of that "claim"...
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136
Wsj won't let me read without paying. It was bought ny Rupert Murdoch a few years ago, though.
0 -
Hi there,
I cut out 99% of sugar until I reach my weight loss goal. The only sugar I allow is from frozen berries in my protein shake. No fruit or juice otherwise.
I am an extreme sugar addict - I loved coke, chocolate, candy, ice cream, baking and so on. This was very hard for me but I adjusted after 3 weeks and also using certain things like sugar free candy, Splenda in my coffee etc (I know it's not great for you but I can't take the aftertaste of stevia).
I use brow sugar spends for baking or certain sauces for cooking.
I got used to drinking tea without sugar.
I discovered Menchies has fat free sugar free frozen yogurt which I was very excited about and its so so good.
I haven't had any real sugar in over a month and don't miss it at all but I needed the above things to help curve my cravings.
Good luck!
0 -
herrspoons wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
I think get it. Just because someone limits sugars does not mean they are necessarily healthy.lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Yep. EVERYONE should limit added sugars.herrspoons wrote: »I think everyone should limit added sugars. Limiting is, after all, the very essence of moderation.
Not sure why people find that one tricky.
But if you already limit added sugars it's silly to make that the main definition as to whether you are healthy.
i agree that limiting added sugars is a way to moderate, but so is limiting any food. For example, I don't need two servings of meat anymore than I need six teaspoons of sugar in my coffee, because I want overall balance. This has nothing to do with any foods being good or bad, it's just a method of trying to keep a calorie deficit if losing, or not going over TDEE when maintaining.
oh. Did someone say cutting sugar was the essence of being healthy? I must have missed that.
The government has now explicitly said to limit added sugar, for weight and for health. The WHO has said to limit added sugars for health. I can see why there are even more sugar threads than usual.
I think I went out on a limb.
The "government" is talking about moderation, which is in the eye of the beholder. We all make the choice what to moderate, as well as how to moderate.
I love my sugary stuff, have lost plenty of weight eating the sweet stuff, and have been maintaining for well over a year. The thing is I don't go hog wild every day like I used to, I just hog wild sometimes, but work hard to make sure my end week calories are reasonably close to what I need. It's not perfect, but it's doable.
I would wager that 99% of the government is overweight...
Don't let them guide you
I'd assume that "government" here is a metonymy of sorts. I'd assume they mean the folks on the government panel who've been studying mountains of data. I'll google a few, but I'm figuring 99% of that panel isn't overweight.
I figure 99% don't know what the hell they are talking about.
Beside the world is going to end any day now because of global warming...
All those stupid scientists trying to act like they understand science...
(97% agree on global warming. It's a thing.)
yea, like all those 'scientists' who got caught fudging the numbers on global warming...
and I would really love an actual citation on that 97% number....
Dude, look it up. I'm not even having this debate, it is settled science. There is no real debate within the scientific community.
Climate change is a reality. What we need to understand us how much of it is human mediated, and what the likely impact will be.
well, I agree with natural warming and cooling cycles....
I don't agree with all the carbon demonizing...
Then you are going against the scientific community, and with the pseudo-scientists and industry lobbyists.
seems to me there were plenty of "warming" periods in the past where there was no man made carbon and the planet warmed on its own naturally. The most recent period being after the "little ice age"....
and last time I checked I am not getting paid by the carbon lobby ...
so you are saying that every scientist believes in man made global warming...? And anyone with a valid counter point is a pseudo scientist?
0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
I think get it. Just because someone limits sugars does not mean they are necessarily healthy.lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Yep. EVERYONE should limit added sugars.herrspoons wrote: »I think everyone should limit added sugars. Limiting is, after all, the very essence of moderation.
Not sure why people find that one tricky.
But if you already limit added sugars it's silly to make that the main definition as to whether you are healthy.
i agree that limiting added sugars is a way to moderate, but so is limiting any food. For example, I don't need two servings of meat anymore than I need six teaspoons of sugar in my coffee, because I want overall balance. This has nothing to do with any foods being good or bad, it's just a method of trying to keep a calorie deficit if losing, or not going over TDEE when maintaining.
oh. Did someone say cutting sugar was the essence of being healthy? I must have missed that.
The government has now explicitly said to limit added sugar, for weight and for health. The WHO has said to limit added sugars for health. I can see why there are even more sugar threads than usual.
I think I went out on a limb.
The "government" is talking about moderation, which is in the eye of the beholder. We all make the choice what to moderate, as well as how to moderate.
I love my sugary stuff, have lost plenty of weight eating the sweet stuff, and have been maintaining for well over a year. The thing is I don't go hog wild every day like I used to, I just hog wild sometimes, but work hard to make sure my end week calories are reasonably close to what I need. It's not perfect, but it's doable.
I would wager that 99% of the government is overweight...
Don't let them guide you
I'd assume that "government" here is a metonymy of sorts. I'd assume they mean the folks on the government panel who've been studying mountains of data. I'll google a few, but I'm figuring 99% of that panel isn't overweight.
I figure 99% don't know what the hell they are talking about.
Beside the world is going to end any day now because of global warming...
All those stupid scientists trying to act like they understand science...
(97% agree on global warming. It's a thing.)
yea, like all those 'scientists' who got caught fudging the numbers on global warming...
and I would really love an actual citation on that 97% number....
Dude, look it up. I'm not even having this debate, it is settled science. There is no real debate within the scientific community.
LOL OK ...
your the one making the 97% claim not me...
and if it is so settled then why did they have to fake numbers to prove their point...?
when ever someone says "it is settled" that just means that they have no additional information to contribute.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
I love how it says "very likely" ....
as a counterpoint..here is the debunking of that "claim"...
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136
Wsj won't let me read without paying. It was bought ny Rupert Murdoch a few years ago, though.
I accessed it fine without paying.0 -
herrspoons wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
I think get it. Just because someone limits sugars does not mean they are necessarily healthy.lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Yep. EVERYONE should limit added sugars.herrspoons wrote: »I think everyone should limit added sugars. Limiting is, after all, the very essence of moderation.
Not sure why people find that one tricky.
But if you already limit added sugars it's silly to make that the main definition as to whether you are healthy.
i agree that limiting added sugars is a way to moderate, but so is limiting any food. For example, I don't need two servings of meat anymore than I need six teaspoons of sugar in my coffee, because I want overall balance. This has nothing to do with any foods being good or bad, it's just a method of trying to keep a calorie deficit if losing, or not going over TDEE when maintaining.
oh. Did someone say cutting sugar was the essence of being healthy? I must have missed that.
The government has now explicitly said to limit added sugar, for weight and for health. The WHO has said to limit added sugars for health. I can see why there are even more sugar threads than usual.
I think I went out on a limb.
The "government" is talking about moderation, which is in the eye of the beholder. We all make the choice what to moderate, as well as how to moderate.
I love my sugary stuff, have lost plenty of weight eating the sweet stuff, and have been maintaining for well over a year. The thing is I don't go hog wild every day like I used to, I just hog wild sometimes, but work hard to make sure my end week calories are reasonably close to what I need. It's not perfect, but it's doable.
I would wager that 99% of the government is overweight...
Don't let them guide you
I'd assume that "government" here is a metonymy of sorts. I'd assume they mean the folks on the government panel who've been studying mountains of data. I'll google a few, but I'm figuring 99% of that panel isn't overweight.
I figure 99% don't know what the hell they are talking about.
Beside the world is going to end any day now because of global warming...
All those stupid scientists trying to act like they understand science...
(97% agree on global warming. It's a thing.)
yea, like all those 'scientists' who got caught fudging the numbers on global warming...
and I would really love an actual citation on that 97% number....
Dude, look it up. I'm not even having this debate, it is settled science. There is no real debate within the scientific community.
Climate change is a reality. What we need to understand us how much of it is human mediated, and what the likely impact will be.
well, I agree with natural warming and cooling cycles....
I don't agree with all the carbon demonizing...
Then you are going against the scientific community, and with the pseudo-scientists and industry lobbyists.
seems to me there were plenty of "warming" periods in the past where there was no man made carbon and the planet warmed on its own naturally. The most recent period being after the "little ice age"....
and last time I checked I am not getting paid by the carbon lobby ...
so you are saying that every scientist believes in man made global warming...? And anyone with a valid counter point is a pseudo scientist?
Not every one. The vast majority.
0 -
deandra_carroll wrote: »Hi there,
I cut out 99% of sugar until I reach my weight loss goal. The only sugar I allow is from frozen berries in my protein shake. No fruit or juice otherwise.
I am an extreme sugar addict - I loved coke, chocolate, candy, ice cream, baking and so on. This was very hard for me but I adjusted after 3 weeks and also using certain things like sugar free candy, Splenda in my coffee etc (I know it's not great for you but I can't take the aftertaste of stevia).
I use brow sugar spends for baking or certain sauces for cooking.
I got used to drinking tea without sugar.
I discovered Menchies has fat free sugar free frozen yogurt which I was very excited about and its so so good.
I haven't had any real sugar in over a month and don't miss it at all but I needed the above things to help curve my cravings.
Good luck!
Isn't brown sugar just regular sugar with added molasses?
0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
I think get it. Just because someone limits sugars does not mean they are necessarily healthy.lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Yep. EVERYONE should limit added sugars.herrspoons wrote: »I think everyone should limit added sugars. Limiting is, after all, the very essence of moderation.
Not sure why people find that one tricky.
But if you already limit added sugars it's silly to make that the main definition as to whether you are healthy.
i agree that limiting added sugars is a way to moderate, but so is limiting any food. For example, I don't need two servings of meat anymore than I need six teaspoons of sugar in my coffee, because I want overall balance. This has nothing to do with any foods being good or bad, it's just a method of trying to keep a calorie deficit if losing, or not going over TDEE when maintaining.
oh. Did someone say cutting sugar was the essence of being healthy? I must have missed that.
The government has now explicitly said to limit added sugar, for weight and for health. The WHO has said to limit added sugars for health. I can see why there are even more sugar threads than usual.
I think I went out on a limb.
The "government" is talking about moderation, which is in the eye of the beholder. We all make the choice what to moderate, as well as how to moderate.
I love my sugary stuff, have lost plenty of weight eating the sweet stuff, and have been maintaining for well over a year. The thing is I don't go hog wild every day like I used to, I just hog wild sometimes, but work hard to make sure my end week calories are reasonably close to what I need. It's not perfect, but it's doable.
I would wager that 99% of the government is overweight...
Don't let them guide you
I'd assume that "government" here is a metonymy of sorts. I'd assume they mean the folks on the government panel who've been studying mountains of data. I'll google a few, but I'm figuring 99% of that panel isn't overweight.
I figure 99% don't know what the hell they are talking about.
Beside the world is going to end any day now because of global warming...
All those stupid scientists trying to act like they understand science...
(97% agree on global warming. It's a thing.)
yea, like all those 'scientists' who got caught fudging the numbers on global warming...
and I would really love an actual citation on that 97% number....
Dude, look it up. I'm not even having this debate, it is settled science. There is no real debate within the scientific community.
LOL OK ...
your the one making the 97% claim not me...
and if it is so settled then why did they have to fake numbers to prove their point...?
when ever someone says "it is settled" that just means that they have no additional information to contribute.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
I love how it says "very likely" ....
as a counterpoint..here is the debunking of that "claim"...
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136
Wsj won't let me read without paying. It was bought ny Rupert Murdoch a few years ago, though.
I accessed it fine without paying.
I think they let you read a certain amount before they try to charge you.
Here's an interesting article I just found about that consensus number and the debate about it.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-determine-the-scientific-consensus-on-global-warming/0 -
This content has been removed.
-
herrspoons wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
I think get it. Just because someone limits sugars does not mean they are necessarily healthy.lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Yep. EVERYONE should limit added sugars.herrspoons wrote: »I think everyone should limit added sugars. Limiting is, after all, the very essence of moderation.
Not sure why people find that one tricky.
But if you already limit added sugars it's silly to make that the main definition as to whether you are healthy.
i agree that limiting added sugars is a way to moderate, but so is limiting any food. For example, I don't need two servings of meat anymore than I need six teaspoons of sugar in my coffee, because I want overall balance. This has nothing to do with any foods being good or bad, it's just a method of trying to keep a calorie deficit if losing, or not going over TDEE when maintaining.
oh. Did someone say cutting sugar was the essence of being healthy? I must have missed that.
The government has now explicitly said to limit added sugar, for weight and for health. The WHO has said to limit added sugars for health. I can see why there are even more sugar threads than usual.
I think I went out on a limb.
The "government" is talking about moderation, which is in the eye of the beholder. We all make the choice what to moderate, as well as how to moderate.
I love my sugary stuff, have lost plenty of weight eating the sweet stuff, and have been maintaining for well over a year. The thing is I don't go hog wild every day like I used to, I just hog wild sometimes, but work hard to make sure my end week calories are reasonably close to what I need. It's not perfect, but it's doable.
I would wager that 99% of the government is overweight...
Don't let them guide you
I'd assume that "government" here is a metonymy of sorts. I'd assume they mean the folks on the government panel who've been studying mountains of data. I'll google a few, but I'm figuring 99% of that panel isn't overweight.
I figure 99% don't know what the hell they are talking about.
Beside the world is going to end any day now because of global warming...
All those stupid scientists trying to act like they understand science...
(97% agree on global warming. It's a thing.)
yea, like all those 'scientists' who got caught fudging the numbers on global warming...
and I would really love an actual citation on that 97% number....
Dude, look it up. I'm not even having this debate, it is settled science. There is no real debate within the scientific community.
Climate change is a reality. What we need to understand us how much of it is human mediated, and what the likely impact will be.
well, I agree with natural warming and cooling cycles....
I don't agree with all the carbon demonizing...
Carbon demonizing! Now I've seen everything on here.
:drinker: 0 -
Hey everyone,
I was wondering how everyone was staying within their sugar goal for the day. The recommendation staying at 68g of sugar or less is very difficult for me to meet. I used to blow by it the end of breakfast but after cutting soda and other sugary drinks i still normally go over the limit.
For example today, this has been what i have eaten today.
BF
Veggie omelet with cheese
Pinto beans
Apple
Water
Lunch
Chicken sandwich
Water
Snack
Low-fat yogurt
Granola
Chia seeds
Banana
Water
I think for the most part, that is a solid diet and right now i'm on target to be right at my goals for calories, fiber, vitamins (right now i'm over on vitamin A), cholesterol and everything else but i am already at 87 grams of sugar. The two things that have the most sugar according to MFP is banana at 28g, followed by the apple at 16g. I'm not sure if these are very accurate or if i should weigh the fruit and only eat what matches exactly the portions MFP is going by. Just curious on what everyone else has been doing or is having this problem.
Alex
I was quite happy to let this thread die. I am not going to enter into the global warming issue.
Poor OP has long ago lost interest so I will just wish him well and hope he was able to gain something of use out of all of our self indulgence beliefs.
For me, I am still - enjoy your 2 - 3 fruit and limit your added sugar.0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »Foods should not be demonised. Sugar is just sugar. In moderation it's fine.
What does moderation look like ? 15% of calorie intake, or 20%, or 50 grams or ......
According to the drafted guidelines? no more than 10%. And no more than 48 grams of added sugar per day. About one soda a day, or one Oprah Chai Tea [sic] Latte. Of course, it's all moot until and unless the U.S. government actually starts labeling added sugars accurately.
Yeah, but the 10% is "added", the great unmeasurable. herrspoons decided moderation is "do what you want" so it's probably a moot point.
I've yet to see a coherent argument emerge that MFP's 15% target for all sugars is defective, though the science doesn't seem to be there to compare isocaloric diets with different sugar contents and sources of sugar at the same macro percentages.0 -
I'd agree.Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »Foods should not be demonised. Sugar is just sugar. In moderation it's fine.
What does moderation look like ? 15% of calorie intake, or 20%, or 50 grams or ......
According to the drafted guidelines? no more than 10%. And no more than 48 grams of added sugar per day. About one soda a day, or one Oprah Chai Tea [sic] Latte. Of course, it's all moot until and unless the U.S. government actually starts labeling added sugars accurately.
Yeah, but the 10% is "added", the great unmeasurable. herrspoons decided moderation is "do what you want" so it's probably a moot point.
I've yet to see a coherent argument emerge that MFP's 15% target for all sugars is defective, though the science doesn't seem to be there to compare isocaloric diets with different sugar contents and sources of sugar at the same macro percentages.
0 -
I don't know if this is a coherent argument that the 15% target is defective, but something's not right about it.
I had a day, without consuming any fruit or added sugar at all, where I went over on my sugar goal simply from the naturally occurring sugar in dairy and non-starchy vegetables.
Now, naturally, given the nutritious nature of the food I ate, I didn't let this bother me, but it's possible to be eating well within recommended dietary guidelines and still go over the MFP allowance. My biggest sugar hit that day came from cauliflower.0 -
Oops what happened? Who has been naughty?0
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
- 427 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