why limit fruit intake?
Options
Replies
-
Because they have sugars and fast releasing carbs. Fruits are essential in a healthy diet imo, but in a moderate quantity.
Veggies gives you a lot of the stuff fruits do, but at a lower 'cost'(less calories).
If you're trying to lose weight it's better to stick to slow releasing carbs and avoid high-sugar fruits like grapes or bananas(they're my favorite
). 0 -
RockstarWilson wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »Speaking of kids getting fat.. someone just told me our (Aus) mcdonalds 'Large' sizes are Americas 'small' size.If this is correct, I dread to think how huge your large fries and coke are
Large fries...about as big as a 10 oz rib-eye.
Large coke....borderline 1-Liter if you top off before you leave the restaurant. And its not just mcdonalds. That is every fast food restaurant in America, except New York City. They seem to have their head screwed on right in that city, make up for a lack of parenting skills in this country, at least somewhat.
Ausdie Aussie Aussie! Oi Oi Oi!!!
yikes!! Definitely double the size of ours...
0 -
RockstarWilson wrote: »RockstarWilson wrote: »RockstarWilson wrote: »1. per capita added sugar consumption has increased by about 10%, or 12 lbs per person, since 1980...
Sugar is killing humanity.
Sugar consumption went up roughly 1000% percent between the mid-1800s and the mid-1900s - yet life expectancy and overall health went up dramatically.
But somehow this last 10% increase is going to be the death of us?
Not seeing the logic in this...
The 1800s....before fridges, automobiles, televisions, electronics, population explosion, hospitals. People had to hunt or trade for food, had to defend property by themselves, had to worry about a plethora of uncurable communicable diseases, and had to fight in hand to hand wars.
Life expectancy has gone up drastically since the 1800s, but it will be going back down, I believe. And it takes decades to die from obesity. 1/3 of our kids today will probably die by the time they are 50, or be severely handicapped. Being that society only makes changes when people die, nothing will change in the coming years, and I am crazy, I know. There are too many variables to put sugar as the sole reason people will die. Sugar carries addictive qualities, maybe not to the degree that cigarettes do, but they are there. Just go through the threads and count up all the topics that include "I dont have the will power to give that up. Help me." This is speculation, but I would bet the farm that at least 90% of the foods they talk about are either sugary, or have hfcs in them.
No, sugar does not cause death, but it establishes eating habits that produce conditions that eventually lead to death. We have the JDRF for one reason: our kids are too fat bc they cant stop eating. The food is too tempting for them. Kids have diabetes for one reason, and one reason only: sugar overload. Childhood obesity and diabetes go hand in hand, and ultimately have one cause: eating too much. And how do people eat too much?
Since obesity hinders insulin production, overeating causes obesity, sugar causes overeating, tv time increases food intake, and lack of physical activity (caused by excess tv time) , and sugar overconsumption can kill a diabetic, what do you see happening?
I noticed a couple of factual errors in your post, so I edited them out for you. You're welcome!
Yes, factually I was wrong about the 1800s. The first automobile was in 1885, there were hospitals in the most populated areas, and there was electricity that powered light bulbs (but no video games...Cmon, Ben, you are slacking!).
So, why do you think 1/3 of our kids are fat? Bc they are outside playing soccer all day? And it is a FACT that tv time drastically alters food consumption. But really, I would like to have what you have to say. Your critiquing my post is irrelevant if you don't have a take.
You already mentioned it yourself. My take is that they are obese because they overeat. I agree with you there. I don't agree that sugar is a villain here. Excess calories are the culprit. And where are you getting the fact that watching tv affects eating habits?
We keep saying "excess calories are the culprit". Yes, but why? Why do people overeat?
Here is a link to a study:http://m.ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/6/1088.full
There are many more, but common sense plays a part here. More women want to work, or have to bc of defunct domestic situations, which takes away from parenting. The DEFAULT when the kids cant be properly parented is to just give them some easily-cooked meal, or snacking food, and sit them in front of the television.
I live with my soon to be ex girlfriend. She dangles crappy food, like cheese nips, popsicles, and cookies above her 4 kids heads to get them to do anything instead of tackling the central issue and taking out all the crap they dont appreciate. I have no authority in this situation. She bought 5 pineapples 3 weeks ago...there are still 5 pineapples on the counter. And the standard free time activity is minecraft or their phones. That is just one example of how *kitten* up this society is. Anything for a cheap fix.
0 -
RockstarWilson wrote: »RockstarWilson wrote: »RockstarWilson wrote: »1. per capita added sugar consumption has increased by about 10%, or 12 lbs per person, since 1980...
Sugar is killing humanity.
Sugar consumption went up roughly 1000% percent between the mid-1800s and the mid-1900s - yet life expectancy and overall health went up dramatically.
But somehow this last 10% increase is going to be the death of us?
Not seeing the logic in this...
The 1800s....before fridges, automobiles, televisions, electronics, population explosion, hospitals. People had to hunt or trade for food, had to defend property by themselves, had to worry about a plethora of uncurable communicable diseases, and had to fight in hand to hand wars.
Life expectancy has gone up drastically since the 1800s, but it will be going back down, I believe. And it takes decades to die from obesity. 1/3 of our kids today will probably die by the time they are 50, or be severely handicapped. Being that society only makes changes when people die, nothing will change in the coming years, and I am crazy, I know. There are too many variables to put sugar as the sole reason people will die. Sugar carries addictive qualities, maybe not to the degree that cigarettes do, but they are there. Just go through the threads and count up all the topics that include "I dont have the will power to give that up. Help me." This is speculation, but I would bet the farm that at least 90% of the foods they talk about are either sugary, or have hfcs in them.
No, sugar does not cause death, but it establishes eating habits that produce conditions that eventually lead to death. We have the JDRF for one reason: our kids are too fat bc they cant stop eating. The food is too tempting for them. Kids have diabetes for one reason, and one reason only: sugar overload. Childhood obesity and diabetes go hand in hand, and ultimately have one cause: eating too much. And how do people eat too much?
Since obesity hinders insulin production, overeating causes obesity, sugar causes overeating, tv time increases food intake, and lack of physical activity (caused by excess tv time) , and sugar overconsumption can kill a diabetic, what do you see happening?
I noticed a couple of factual errors in your post, so I edited them out for you. You're welcome!
Yes, factually I was wrong about the 1800s [and other stuff]. The first automobile was in 1885 1700s, there were hospitals in the most populated areas, and there was electricity that powered light bulbs (but no video games...Cmon, Ben, you are slacking!).
So, why do you think 1/3 of our kids are fat? Bc they are outside playing soccer all day? And it is a FACT that tv time drastically alters food consumption. But really, I would like to have what you have to say. Your critiquing my post is irrelevant if you don't have a take.
Fify.
Also, My kids watch a lot of TV, they are allowed sugar. They aren't fat. Hmm, how does that work?0 -
christinev297 wrote: »RockstarWilson wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »Speaking of kids getting fat.. someone just told me our (Aus) mcdonalds 'Large' sizes are Americas 'small' size.If this is correct, I dread to think how huge your large fries and coke are
Large fries...about as big as a 10 oz rib-eye.
Large coke....borderline 1-Liter if you top off before you leave the restaurant. And its not just mcdonalds. That is every fast food restaurant in America, except New York City. They seem to have their head screwed on right in that city, make up for a lack of parenting skills in this country, at least somewhat.
Ausdie Aussie Aussie! Oi Oi Oi!!!
yikes!! Definitely double the size of ours...
Edit....its borderline 2 liter. I forgot my conversion factors. At Carls Jr and Circle K gas stations, 44oz soda is a buck or less. It's funny...lately, these places have been opening up the fountains. "Any size drink for $1 or less", and as many free refills as you want.
I do partake in this, no lie. But 3 out of 4 times I choose the diet version. And I only have it once every week or two.0 -
RockstarWilson wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »RockstarWilson wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »Speaking of kids getting fat.. someone just told me our (Aus) mcdonalds 'Large' sizes are Americas 'small' size.If this is correct, I dread to think how huge your large fries and coke are
Large fries...about as big as a 10 oz rib-eye.
Large coke....borderline 1-Liter if you top off before you leave the restaurant. And its not just mcdonalds. That is every fast food restaurant in America, except New York City. They seem to have their head screwed on right in that city, make up for a lack of parenting skills in this country, at least somewhat.
Ausdie Aussie Aussie! Oi Oi Oi!!!
yikes!! Definitely double the size of ours...
Edit....its borderline 2 liter. I forgot my conversion factors. At Carls Jr and Circle K gas stations, 44oz soda is a buck or less. It's funny...lately, these places have been opening up the fountains. "Any size drink for $1 or less", and as many free refills as you want.
I do partake in this, no lie. But 3 out of 4 times I choose the diet version. And I only have it once every week or two.
If you are like me, not drinking soda hasn't made you magically slim.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »RockstarWilson wrote: »RockstarWilson wrote: »RockstarWilson wrote: »1. per capita added sugar consumption has increased by about 10%, or 12 lbs per person, since 1980...
Sugar is killing humanity.
Sugar consumption went up roughly 1000% percent between the mid-1800s and the mid-1900s - yet life expectancy and overall health went up dramatically.
But somehow this last 10% increase is going to be the death of us?
Not seeing the logic in this...
The 1800s....before fridges, automobiles, televisions, electronics, population explosion, hospitals. People had to hunt or trade for food, had to defend property by themselves, had to worry about a plethora of uncurable communicable diseases, and had to fight in hand to hand wars.
Life expectancy has gone up drastically since the 1800s, but it will be going back down, I believe. And it takes decades to die from obesity. 1/3 of our kids today will probably die by the time they are 50, or be severely handicapped. Being that society only makes changes when people die, nothing will change in the coming years, and I am crazy, I know. There are too many variables to put sugar as the sole reason people will die. Sugar carries addictive qualities, maybe not to the degree that cigarettes do, but they are there. Just go through the threads and count up all the topics that include "I dont have the will power to give that up. Help me." This is speculation, but I would bet the farm that at least 90% of the foods they talk about are either sugary, or have hfcs in them.
No, sugar does not cause death, but it establishes eating habits that produce conditions that eventually lead to death. We have the JDRF for one reason: our kids are too fat bc they cant stop eating. The food is too tempting for them. Kids have diabetes for one reason, and one reason only: sugar overload. Childhood obesity and diabetes go hand in hand, and ultimately have one cause: eating too much. And how do people eat too much?
Since obesity hinders insulin production, overeating causes obesity, sugar causes overeating, tv time increases food intake, and lack of physical activity (caused by excess tv time) , and sugar overconsumption can kill a diabetic, what do you see happening?
I noticed a couple of factual errors in your post, so I edited them out for you. You're welcome!
Yes, factually I was wrong about the 1800s [and other stuff]. The first automobile was in 1885 1700s, there were hospitals in the most populated areas, and there was electricity that powered light bulbs (but no video games...Cmon, Ben, you are slacking!).
So, why do you think 1/3 of our kids are fat? Bc they are outside playing soccer all day? And it is a FACT that tv time drastically alters food consumption. But really, I would like to have what you have to say. Your critiquing my post is irrelevant if you don't have a take.
Fify.
Also, My kids watch a lot of TV, they are allowed sugar. They aren't fat. Hmm, how does that work?
oh holy hell...can you not see that I am talking generically? Obviously, not everyone that watches tv gets fat. Thanks for proving my point on idiocracy.-1 -
-
And everything is so cheap there too!!
I *think a large big mac meal is $10.95, last I checked. It could be more now...0 -
RockstarWilson wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »RockstarWilson wrote: »RockstarWilson wrote: »RockstarWilson wrote: »1. per capita added sugar consumption has increased by about 10%, or 12 lbs per person, since 1980...
Sugar is killing humanity.
Sugar consumption went up roughly 1000% percent between the mid-1800s and the mid-1900s - yet life expectancy and overall health went up dramatically.
But somehow this last 10% increase is going to be the death of us?
Not seeing the logic in this...
The 1800s....before fridges, automobiles, televisions, electronics, population explosion, hospitals. People had to hunt or trade for food, had to defend property by themselves, had to worry about a plethora of uncurable communicable diseases, and had to fight in hand to hand wars.
Life expectancy has gone up drastically since the 1800s, but it will be going back down, I believe. And it takes decades to die from obesity. 1/3 of our kids today will probably die by the time they are 50, or be severely handicapped. Being that society only makes changes when people die, nothing will change in the coming years, and I am crazy, I know. There are too many variables to put sugar as the sole reason people will die. Sugar carries addictive qualities, maybe not to the degree that cigarettes do, but they are there. Just go through the threads and count up all the topics that include "I dont have the will power to give that up. Help me." This is speculation, but I would bet the farm that at least 90% of the foods they talk about are either sugary, or have hfcs in them.
No, sugar does not cause death, but it establishes eating habits that produce conditions that eventually lead to death. We have the JDRF for one reason: our kids are too fat bc they cant stop eating. The food is too tempting for them. Kids have diabetes for one reason, and one reason only: sugar overload. Childhood obesity and diabetes go hand in hand, and ultimately have one cause: eating too much. And how do people eat too much?
Since obesity hinders insulin production, overeating causes obesity, sugar causes overeating, tv time increases food intake, and lack of physical activity (caused by excess tv time) , and sugar overconsumption can kill a diabetic, what do you see happening?
I noticed a couple of factual errors in your post, so I edited them out for you. You're welcome!
Yes, factually I was wrong about the 1800s [and other stuff]. The first automobile was in 1885 1700s, there were hospitals in the most populated areas, and there was electricity that powered light bulbs (but no video games...Cmon, Ben, you are slacking!).
So, why do you think 1/3 of our kids are fat? Bc they are outside playing soccer all day? And it is a FACT that tv time drastically alters food consumption. But really, I would like to have what you have to say. Your critiquing my post is irrelevant if you don't have a take.
Fify.
Also, My kids watch a lot of TV, they are allowed sugar. They aren't fat. Hmm, how does that work?
oh holy hell...can you not see that I am talking generically? Obviously, not everyone that watches tv gets fat. Thanks for proving my point on idiocracy.
Buhahah. You don't even have the most basic understanding of history, population dynamics (1/3 or our kids will die by 50? Lol) and are trying to insult me by using a word that doesn't even exist? Do you get your education from the movies?
I feel honored.
According to you TV and sugar cause problems, except they don't.
You happen to be confusing co-incidental factors with causality. While increase in TV and sugar consumption are both occurring concurrently with decrease physical activity, increase in calories, they aren't causal. If you had spent one second to question ask why - you might have understood that despite my kids watching a lot of TV, they are also very active.
Being sedentary (a highly multi factorial issue linked to lifestyle which may or may not include TV) and overconsumption of calories (which may include soda, HFCs or not) do result in an obese society but your confusing shifts in labor, free time use with causation.
Now who's the idiot?
0 -
Bore off!!! Just eat food and enjoy life.0
-
RockstarWilson wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »RockstarWilson wrote: »RockstarWilson wrote: »RockstarWilson wrote: »1. per capita added sugar consumption has increased by about 10%, or 12 lbs per person, since 1980...
Sugar is killing humanity.
Sugar consumption went up roughly 1000% percent between the mid-1800s and the mid-1900s - yet life expectancy and overall health went up dramatically.
But somehow this last 10% increase is going to be the death of us?
Not seeing the logic in this...
The 1800s....before fridges, automobiles, televisions, electronics, population explosion, hospitals. People had to hunt or trade for food, had to defend property by themselves, had to worry about a plethora of uncurable communicable diseases, and had to fight in hand to hand wars.
Life expectancy has gone up drastically since the 1800s, but it will be going back down, I believe. And it takes decades to die from obesity. 1/3 of our kids today will probably die by the time they are 50, or be severely handicapped. Being that society only makes changes when people die, nothing will change in the coming years, and I am crazy, I know. There are too many variables to put sugar as the sole reason people will die. Sugar carries addictive qualities, maybe not to the degree that cigarettes do, but they are there. Just go through the threads and count up all the topics that include "I dont have the will power to give that up. Help me." This is speculation, but I would bet the farm that at least 90% of the foods they talk about are either sugary, or have hfcs in them.
No, sugar does not cause death, but it establishes eating habits that produce conditions that eventually lead to death. We have the JDRF for one reason: our kids are too fat bc they cant stop eating. The food is too tempting for them. Kids have diabetes for one reason, and one reason only: sugar overload. Childhood obesity and diabetes go hand in hand, and ultimately have one cause: eating too much. And how do people eat too much?
Since obesity hinders insulin production, overeating causes obesity, sugar causes overeating, tv time increases food intake, and lack of physical activity (caused by excess tv time) , and sugar overconsumption can kill a diabetic, what do you see happening?
I noticed a couple of factual errors in your post, so I edited them out for you. You're welcome!
Yes, factually I was wrong about the 1800s [and other stuff]. The first automobile was in 1885 1700s, there were hospitals in the most populated areas, and there was electricity that powered light bulbs (but no video games...Cmon, Ben, you are slacking!).
So, why do you think 1/3 of our kids are fat? Bc they are outside playing soccer all day? And it is a FACT that tv time drastically alters food consumption. But really, I would like to have what you have to say. Your critiquing my post is irrelevant if you don't have a take.
Fify.
Also, My kids watch a lot of TV, they are allowed sugar. They aren't fat. Hmm, how does that work?
oh holy hell...can you not see that I am talking generically? Obviously, not everyone that watches tv gets fat. Thanks for proving my point on idiocracy.
Wait wait wait!!
Okay go.0 -
Glycemic load is important if you have diabetes.0
-
Some people choose to limit fruit due to it's relatively high carbohydrate (in the simple form of sugar) content. Although the sugars in fruit do occur naturally, they are still processed by your body as a carbohydrate and stored as fat if not used (through physical activity expenditure). The simplicity of the carbohydrate in fruit also makes it not as good of a choice if the goal is to stay fuller and energized for a longer period of time (as a complex carb like whole grain or something with a high protein content would do) as sugars are broken down rapidly by our bodies. There are a whole host of other reasons people may choose to limit fruit intake (ie; they are diabetic) and there are many articles by well trained athletes/fitness + nutrition professionals all over the Internet that can give you further information. Good luck with your fitness and nutrition goals!0
-
Hi guys,
Maybe some of you would know the answer why consuming fruits should be done in small amount. I dont get it cause 1) fruits are natural 2) full of nutrients 3) easy to prep and affordable.
Ive been receiving newletter from morellifit, maybe some of you are his clients and he's post are always "fruits (small amount)".
I know some fruits have high sugar but i dont know if thats the real deal with limiting fruits.
Let me know your thoughts. Thanks.
Because is high in sugar fruits are part of carbs so in a diet must be limited and add wxercise that use that sugar to contract muscles.
0 -
I'm so confused. Yes, some fruits are higher cal - but so long as you're including it in your MFP recommended calorie intake (and sticking to what they suggest) why would it matter?0
-
-
RockstarWilson wrote: »I only limit fruit because I prefer berries, melon and fresh pineapple and in the UK these can be expensive. I usually have an apple each day and loads of veggies instead. I love bananas but only when they are nice and firm, once they start browning I'm not keen.
That's what she said...
Only just seen this. Smirk!
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 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
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions