Questions about sugar
Options
Replies
-
I really, really want you to answer my question.Chrysalid2014 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »
However, it still doesn't change the fact that you were wrong in saying that the percentages would be the same.
It still doesn't change the fact that you're not answering the question.
I said the percentages would be IN THE SAME PROPORTION TO ONE ANOTHER. Not "the same".
Do you really, really want me to do the calculations for you?
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »It seems you all fail to understand that whether or not an item of food is 'nutrient dense' has nothing to do with the number of daily allocated calories in a person's diet. It's solely to do with the amount of nutrients within the item proportional to the number of calories it contains.
So, you can make the calculation for any size Snickers you want, or any daily number of calories. The proportions of nutrients within the item don't change.
If you're trying to gain weight or you're on a large number of calories, it doesn't matter so much if your foods are nutrient dense. If you're on restricted calories then it's common sense to try to get the maximum number of nutrients per calorie.
Gibberish. Pure gibberish.
And "proportions of nutrients within the item"? What?
THE ITEM HAS NUTRIENTS. Your body will use them.
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »No one is asking about nutrient density. Stop with the straw man holocaust.
We're ENTIRELY talking about nutrient density. That's what we're talking about!
You are talking about a food in isolation.
WE are talking about TOTAL diet.
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »
However, it still doesn't change the fact that you were wrong in saying that the percentages would be the same.
It still doesn't change the fact that you're not answering the question.
I said the percentages would be IN THE SAME PROPORTION TO ONE ANOTHER. Not "the same".
Do you really, really want me to do the calculations for you?
Yes please. Tell me how 6% and 12% are the same.
Why don't you answer Deguello?
0 -
And seriously people... let's drop the snickers crap. This is getting ridiculous. You know what I mean. No need to be rude. We all love snickers bars. But if they were so dang healthy... none of us would be on this site trying to lose weight or be healthier. There's something beneficial in everything we eat. Doesn't mean they are healthy. Man... so much for asking a question & trying to find out if others are having the same issue as I am. Thank you though to the people NOT be RUDE.
You know what's weird? I eat chocolate and ice cream and I'm pretty damn healthy. Stop projecting.
Snickers Ice Cream Bars!! BOOM! So much delicious all in one little bar! I shall go get one now. Ta Ta!
0 -
I have had some struggles with my sugar going slightly over as well due to the fruit I eat. Glad to hear I'm not the only one, and that it is not an issue. Thanks..0
-
DeguelloTex wrote: »
I really, really want you to answer my question.Chrysalid2014 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »
However, it still doesn't change the fact that you were wrong in saying that the percentages would be the same.
It still doesn't change the fact that you're not answering the question.
I said the percentages would be IN THE SAME PROPORTION TO ONE ANOTHER. Not "the same".
Do you really, really want me to do the calculations for you?
Here you go. Your macros are significantly different than the default MFP ones but even so the cost calorie wise of this item does not equate to the nutirional benefits.
Calories 13%
Carbs 18%
Fat 34%
Protein 2%
Now, if your macros were set up so that you were on a low protein, high sugar, low fibre diet candy would be the perfect food for you!
0 -
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »That aside, obviously we would all die without insulin. That's why we each have a pancreas. However, I don't know why you're asking the question. Where did I infer insulin was bad?
You said "uh, ever heard of insulin", you know you were saying it was bad. You think I'm a bore (I'm assuming that's what you tried to write) because you have no answers. This conversation is clearly above your head. This page alone demonstrated that you do not have the ability to answer basic questions on this thread which is pathetic especially since you are criticizing the food people eat.
I said "insulin resistance"; not "insulin", and as I already clarified, I was asking a question as to whether there was any connection between this (and other stated disorders) and diet. I admit I should have phrased this question more carefully; I was in rather a hurry as I was on my way out for the evening.
And, I refered to you as a "boor" not "bore" (although if the shoe fits...)
And, this entire discussion started because someone was criticized en masse for wanting to eat fruit instead of candy.
No. That's a false statement.0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
I really, really want you to answer my question.Chrysalid2014 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »
However, it still doesn't change the fact that you were wrong in saying that the percentages would be the same.
It still doesn't change the fact that you're not answering the question.
I said the percentages would be IN THE SAME PROPORTION TO ONE ANOTHER. Not "the same".
Do you really, really want me to do the calculations for you?
Here you go. Your macros are significantly different than the default MFP ones but even so the cost calorie wise of this item does not equate to the nutirional benefits.
Calories 13%
Carbs 18%
Fat 34%
Protein 2%
Now, if your macros were set up so that you were on a low protein, high sugar, low fibre diet candy would be the perfect food for you!
Did you consider what he might have eaten the rest of the day?
Does every individual food you eat meet your macro balance goals in specific proportion?
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
You may be surprised to learn that 33 grams of carbs is a different percentage of a 1230 calorie diet than of a 1980 calorie diet. Perhaps your fundamental misunderstanding of 6th grade math is at the root of your problem.Chrysalid2014 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
Let's suppose someone is on a 1230 calorie diet according to the default MFP nutrition goals:
So from this one item, towards their recommended daily amount, they are getting:
21% of their calories!
42% of their carbs!
29% of their fat!
Only 6% of their protein...
So, the calorie "cost" (21%) is not in line with the other "costs" so therefore it's common sense to choose something else.
The screenshot clearly shows that the person posting this isn't on 1,230 calories. They are on 1,980.
Well, the numbers I quoted are percentages, so they would rise or fall in the same proportion to one another (grade six math).
Why don't you answer the actual question asked?
Heh. Indeed. I was doing 1950 for a while (I'm now back to 1850), and was actually having trouble meeting my carb goal. (Not worried about it, though.)
Another thing is that because there's often no reason to increase protein and fat goals as you increase calories (assuming they are based on your body weight), when someone has a higher limit they may have a higher percentage of desired carbs also.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »That aside, obviously we would all die without insulin. That's why we each have a pancreas. However, I don't know why you're asking the question. Where did I infer insulin was bad?
You said "uh, ever heard of insulin", you know you were saying it was bad. You think I'm a bore (I'm assuming that's what you tried to write) because you have no answers. This conversation is clearly above your head. This page alone demonstrated that you do not have the ability to answer basic questions on this thread which is pathetic especially since you are criticizing the food people eat.
I said "insulin resistance"; not "insulin", and as I already clarified, I was asking a question as to whether there was any connection between this (and other stated disorders) and diet. I admit I should have phrased this question more carefully; I was in rather a hurry as I was on my way out for the evening.
And, I refered to you as a "boor" not "bore" (although if the shoe fits...)
And, this entire discussion started because someone was criticized en masse for wanting to eat fruit instead of candy.
No. That's a false statement.
No. It isn't a false statement.0 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »I'm not focused solely on weight loss...but I also don't believe that "too much sugar" is the primary cause of the problem. I believe it is excess calories (from all sources) and decreased activity resulting in a caloric surplus that leads to obesity and a host of related health problems.
And yet much of my diet is "processed".
As for your comment on the "several IIFYM people. . .look older" comment, perhaps this is more your perception bias than anything meaningful...
...because I think the good looking actual current pictures of the "IIFYM people" look a lot better than the cartoons, pets, and inspirational quotes I've noticed are incredibly popular among so many of the "don't eat crap" proponents.
Or perhaps it's the wisdom of actual years of experience and education that lead to their positions on the topic vs the youthful exuberance of the relatively younger ones pushing "processed = bad".
<<< Dude? Although, truthfully, I agree - don't eat crap. Eat food.
0 -
Apparently everything we eat has to be completely balanced. Don't ever eat an apple because the carbs are too high while the fat and protein count is low to non existent.
Apples are nutrient-dense. Candy bars are not.
Whether something is nutrient dense is expressed by calculating the amount of nutrients in proportion to the number of calories in a serving/set weight.
People on restricted calorie diets, e.g. the original poster, would do well to choose nutrient dense foods, e.g. fruits, in preference to 'empty-calorie' foods such as candy.
That is all.
0 -
ensure you are under your calorie goal and you'll be fine. It is important to have a balanced diet0
-
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »No one is asking about nutrient density. Stop with the straw man holocaust.
We're ENTIRELY talking about nutrient density. That's what we're talking about!
Nope, the discussion has been about sugar.
Specifically, the claim that seems to have gotten you all excited was OP's statement that it's good that she's eating sugar from fruit and not the artificial sugar in a Snickers (or some such) and then people asking why the sugar in a Snickers is so terrible.
Obviously the fruit has more nutrients (although not all the nutrients one needs, and the Snickers has some the fruit doesn't).
Then you went off on some odd tangent about how eating even a 80 calorie Snickers within the context of a diet designed for weight loss is supposedly disapproved of by the US gov't, which is not true. (And I've been able to lose weight in the past at 1850, so that's 4% of my calories, roughly, and anyway the US gov't doesn't think I need to lose weight--or at least they haven't told me so!--I'm just motivated by vanity at this point.
(For the record, I'm currently procrastinating dealing with my horrible tax return.)0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 404 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 987 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions