Opinions on so called 'healthy snacks'
Options
Replies
-
Can we isolate life force from our food products or is it an ineffable quality, like the Breath of God on clay?belleamore1234 wrote: »The refining process of sugar you buy in stores depletes it of all life force....
Why, yes it does. It is pure carbohydrate, one of the Macros. Macro means big. As in important.it has no nutritional value....
0 -
It has carbs. Is there no nutritional value in carbs? What's the nutritional value in the "life force" of sugar cane? Can I find that on a label somewhere?belleamore1234 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
By "not asking for your opinion" she means "asking for scientific facts."belleamore1234 wrote: »belleamore1234 wrote: »belleamore1234 wrote: »belleamore1234 wrote: »belleamore1234 wrote: »They are packed with added sugar as on thier own they would be completely unpalatable, that being said if you are logging then you should be able to keep on top of how much sugar you are eating and staying within your macros. If eating this alone tips you over the egde with sugar swap for porridge and fruit for breakfast and ryvita with cream cheese for snacks this will cut down the refined sugar content
so swap one form of sugar with another???
Please just stop.
There is a big difference between natural sugar and refined sugar if you are talking about overall health
oh really? and what would that be?
If person A hits their micros and eats added sugar and Person B hits their micros and eats "natural sugar" then why would person B be healthier than person A as they are both hitting their micro requirements.
I am talking about overall health! Not macro requirements I am talking about whats good for the body, refined white sugar added to foods is not as healthy as naturally produced sugars in fruit and natural carbs if you are attempting to argue with that you must be insane just because two people are hitting the same macro requirements doesn't mean they have the same level of health someone that chooses to hit thier macros eating a snicker isn't going to be as healthy as someone that chooses a natural alternative to get thier sugars on a regular basis
Why not?
Are you seriously asking why artifical ingredient laden foods are not as healthy as natural ones?
Yes. And I'm not asking for your opinion.
Maybe the the concept of asking a question is lost, it usually warrants an answer!
Refined sugar has no nutritional value, none it has no life force no vitamins and no minerals - sugar cane before it is refined does so if you still want to tell me one is equally as healthy as the other well ..................................
0 -
Sugar Health Effects
There is nothing inherently worse about refined sugar, except that it's pretty much wasted calories. When it comes to simple sugars, they're all the same. Granted fructose is a much more easily absorbed sugar than sucrose, but if we're talking about something like white Dixie Crystals vs. Turbinado sugar one is not more inherently nutritious. Doctors and nutritionists agree that honey and maple syrup make better sweeteners, not because they're better for you, but because they are more intense in flavor and you don't need as much as you do table sugar to sweeten food.0 -
belleamore1234 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
WTF does that even mean?belleamore1234 wrote: »SherryTeach wrote: »After hitting macro and micro nutrient goals, I think a few discretionary calories on something that tastes good, whatever that is, is perfectly fine. Sugar beets and sugar cane are about as natural as any other type of sugar. Fear-mongering annoys me.
The refining process of sugar you buy in stores depletes it of all life force, vitamins and minerals it has no nutritional value sugar cane in its natural state before refinement still have nutrional value how sugar starts and how it ends up in your food are two totally different products if you don't know that then i'm at a loss
Are you arguing that carbs have no nutritional value?
It is evident you were educated in the United States
And where were you educated that taught you sugar has a "life force"??
And you didn't answer the questions posed to you.
So by that statement I assume you believe that sugar wasn't living when it was growing? That it didn't have vitamins and minerals that are depleted in the refinement processing leaving it as nothing more than an empty calorie filler with no nutrional value?
0 -
I think what everybody is failing to do is stick with the actual topic posted.
This argument could go on forever and ever and ever and ever and ever but the fact is, both sides are failing to look at the other and failing just as much to put any factual evidence on the board.
I mean, really, it's like reading the comments on Youtube videos.0 -
How about a handful of almonds and a piece of fruit like a clementine? My problem with snacks like that is they make me want more snacks like that...they aren't 'satisfying'.
0 -
belleamore1234 wrote: »belleamore1234 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
WTF does that even mean?belleamore1234 wrote: »SherryTeach wrote: »After hitting macro and micro nutrient goals, I think a few discretionary calories on something that tastes good, whatever that is, is perfectly fine. Sugar beets and sugar cane are about as natural as any other type of sugar. Fear-mongering annoys me.
The refining process of sugar you buy in stores depletes it of all life force, vitamins and minerals it has no nutritional value sugar cane in its natural state before refinement still have nutrional value how sugar starts and how it ends up in your food are two totally different products if you don't know that then i'm at a loss
Are you arguing that carbs have no nutritional value?
It is evident you were educated in the United States
And where were you educated that taught you sugar has a "life force"??
And you didn't answer the questions posed to you.
So by that statement I assume you believe that sugar wasn't living when it was growing? That it didn't have vitamins and minerals that are depleted in the refinement processing leaving it as nothing more than an empty calorie filler with no nutrional value?
so by that logic bread has no life force? what about yoghurt? or cheese? pasta?
0 -
Laura_buthlay wrote: »Thanks all, what are these macro and micro targets everyone has mentioned?
Macros are your macro nutrients: fat, carbs, and protein. MFP has given you one possible breakdown for your macros, but I think it's important to note that it's not the only possible ratio for weight loss. You can customize it based on your personal needs and preferences.
Micros (micronutrients) are all of the other vitamins and minerals your body needs. Everything from vitamin C to potassium to iron and calcium.
0 -
"Nutritious," however you choose to define the word, wasn't the issue.isulo_kura wrote: »belleamore1234 wrote: »SherryTeach wrote: »After hitting macro and micro nutrient goals, I think a few discretionary calories on something that tastes good, whatever that is, is perfectly fine. Sugar beets and sugar cane are about as natural as any other type of sugar. Fear-mongering annoys me.
The refining process of sugar you buy in stores depletes it of all life force, vitamins and minerals it has no nutritional value sugar cane in its natural state before refinement still have nutrional value how sugar starts and how it ends up in your food are two totally different products if you don't know that then i'm at a loss
Sugar has calories so saying it has no nutritional value is silly.
Everything that has calories is not necessarily nutritious.
Carbs have nutritional value.
Sugar has carbs.
Therefore, sugar has nutritional value.
0 -
How about a handful of almonds and a piece of fruit like a clementine?
I find that fruit with nuts is a huge helper. I like having a boost of protein with my snacks.
On that same topic of protein, I just discovered lovely, lovely Wasa crackers. I take about two tablespoons of prepared tuna (I would highly recommend trying plain Greek yogurt instead of mayo) and spread it on. It's quick, it's delicious, and healthy.0 -
We're spiraling in yet another straw-man argument. Nobody is saying "refined sugar is nutritionally equal to fruit". People have been trying to explain that sugar from refined sugar is nutritionally equal to sugar from fruit. It was explicitly said that if someone meets their macros (carbs, protein, fat) and micros (vitamins, minerals, etc etc) then it matters precious little what source of sugar you used to get the XYZ grams of sugar you ate.0
-
-
To the OP:
"Healthy" is a term that needs to be applied to an entire diet, not individual foods. Foods, when viewed in a vaccuum, are not individually 'healthy' or 'unhealthy'. An entire diet can be healthy or unhealthy though, and needs to consider your calorie/macro/micro needs, your activity, and your goals.
To the sidebar:
WTF - life force? Does that mean the person who advocated this only gnaws on live animals and plants for sustinence?0 -
I feel so bad for OP.0
-
belleamore1234 wrote: »TavistockToad wrote: »belleamore1234 wrote: »belleamore1234 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
WTF does that even mean?belleamore1234 wrote: »SherryTeach wrote: »After hitting macro and micro nutrient goals, I think a few discretionary calories on something that tastes good, whatever that is, is perfectly fine. Sugar beets and sugar cane are about as natural as any other type of sugar. Fear-mongering annoys me.
The refining process of sugar you buy in stores depletes it of all life force, vitamins and minerals it has no nutritional value sugar cane in its natural state before refinement still have nutrional value how sugar starts and how it ends up in your food are two totally different products if you don't know that then i'm at a loss
Are you arguing that carbs have no nutritional value?
It is evident you were educated in the United States
And where were you educated that taught you sugar has a "life force"??
And you didn't answer the questions posed to you.
So by that statement I assume you believe that sugar wasn't living when it was growing? That it didn't have vitamins and minerals that are depleted in the refinement processing leaving it as nothing more than an empty calorie filler with no nutrional value?
so by that logic bread has no life force? what about yoghurt? or cheese? pasta?
Do you know what being thick means?
well that's not very nice is it... surely if you believe in 'life forces' you also believe in Karma...?0 -
For me, snacks are not filling. I would rather go hungry in between meals and then eat something of substance. There is no medical or health need to eat snacks throughout the day.
I recommend to others that they simply drop snacks altogether to meet calorie goals. When hungry, drink something calorie-free instead.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
"Nutritious," however you choose to define the word, wasn't the issue.isulo_kura wrote: »belleamore1234 wrote: »SherryTeach wrote: »After hitting macro and micro nutrient goals, I think a few discretionary calories on something that tastes good, whatever that is, is perfectly fine. Sugar beets and sugar cane are about as natural as any other type of sugar. Fear-mongering annoys me.
The refining process of sugar you buy in stores depletes it of all life force, vitamins and minerals it has no nutritional value sugar cane in its natural state before refinement still have nutrional value how sugar starts and how it ends up in your food are two totally different products if you don't know that then i'm at a loss
Sugar has calories so saying it has no nutritional value is silly.
Everything that has calories is not necessarily nutritious.
Carbs have nutritional value.
Sugar has carbs.
Therefore, sugar has nutritional value.
I did not say that was the issue. The poster I quoted said "Sugar has calories so it's silly to say it's not nutritious". My point was calling something nutritious just because it has calories is what's actually silly.0 -
@belleamore1234 You never answered the question. Who is healthier? Please look at the quote so you see what I bold for you since you didn't know the difference of macros and micros. Micros are you vitamins and minerals. Macros are fats, proteins, and carbs since you didn't.belleamore1234 wrote: »belleamore1234 wrote: »belleamore1234 wrote: »They are packed with added sugar as on thier own they would be completely unpalatable, that being said if you are logging then you should be able to keep on top of how much sugar you are eating and staying within your macros. If eating this alone tips you over the egde with sugar swap for porridge and fruit for breakfast and ryvita with cream cheese for snacks this will cut down the refined sugar content
so swap one form of sugar with another???
Please just stop.
There is a big difference between natural sugar and refined sugar if you are talking about overall health
oh really? and what would that be?
If person A hits their micros and eats added sugar and Person B hits their micros and eats "natural sugar" then why would person B be healthier than person A as they are both hitting their micro requirements.
So what you are saying is its ok to miss out on all the vitamins and minerals in fruits and natural carbs and choose added sugar corn syrup laden cereals as long as you hit your macros lol
0 -
I think you need to read the posts more closely.ArtsyAlexis wrote: »I think what everybody is failing to do is stick with the actual topic posted.
This argument could go on forever and ever and ever and ever and ever but the fact is, both sides are failing to look at the other and failing just as much to put any factual evidence on the board.
I mean, really, it's like reading the comments on Youtube videos.
It was pointed out that the sugar -- and fat -- weren't inherently bad and that the snacks in question were fine if they fit within the OP's caloric and macro goals. Then the "life force" of sugar cane got injected into the conversation. But, yeah, if the other side of the argument is "lack of life force in the food" I'm certainly not persuaded.
0 -
You could basically have a Snickers bar for the calorie "cost" of one Crunchy Linseed with Cranberry and one Almonds Cranberry & Coconut crispbread mini.
I think "healthy" packaged snacks are a rip-off. If you want a healthy snack, a handful of actual almonds, dried cranberries and dried coconuts would be cheaper and healthier.
If you want a sweet treat, then have a Snickers (or whatever), log the calories, and enjoy it!0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 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
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 917 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions