On the topic of Sugar....
Options
Replies
-
Upstream someone was disturbed about the government and the ADA communication about sugar. I'm not sure what is disturbing.
Diabetes.org speaks about sugar in context with all carbs here, and I think it is a balanced approach.
http://www.diabetes.org/food-and-fitness/food/what-can-i-eat/understanding-carbohydrates/sugar-and-desserts.html
Again, when eating for diabetes control I did not worry about my fruit intake and I averaged at least two servings a day.
That was me. I believe these organisations should mention going low carb as a possible treatment plan since moderate carbs don't always work. I know some people do fine treating IR with moderate carbs, but not everyone does, whereas most people with IR do better on a low carb diet
I'm prediabetic and eat a very low carb ketogenic diet to treat my insulin resistance. I ate fewer than 20g of carbs for three months and my blood glucose was usually normal. For the last month I increased my calories to maintenance level and my carbs too. I was eating under 50g of carbs per day but usually over 30g. Those carbs came from snap peas, celery, carrots, coconut and nuts, and a bit more veggie throughout my day. It wasn't much. No carbage beyond a sugar free crustless cheese cake I made, and my prediabetic fasting blood glucose was back. Consistently. Darn it.
I have tightened up my carb limit again and BG is back to normal levels. THE ADA and CDA should be telling people about a low carb diet because some of us need it... At least provide it as option B! KWIM?
I had to go against my endocrinologist's wishes in order to normalize my blood glucose. I think that I should have at least been told about a low carb option. If I was the type of person who didn't take charge of my own health, my insulin resistance would probably still be uncontrolled.0 -
nvmomketo, are you still overweight? I need to research this more, but I think very low carb can also increase insulin resistance so you might have a "bounce back" effect.0
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »For people who have to watch their sugar number, it does not matter if the sugars are so called "healthy" or not. Sugar is still sugar.
This isn't true. For diabetics fructose usually doesn't have the same impact on blood sugar levels. Grapes, for example, are a high sugar fruit but they are also high in fructose and usually don't spike blood glucose levels like candy will.
Yes it is true that sugar is sugar. A diabetic's pancreas does not work properly, therefore they must watch the overall carbs according to their doctor's instructions.
Yet when they eat grapes the little meter does not show the same result as if they eat an equal amount of sugar from candy. That kind of sounds different.
I'm sorry, what little meter?
It's not about the sugar, it's about some bodies not metabolizing sugar very well, and it can be candy or fruit or anything else with sugar. It's the overall picture of food eaten throughout the day that's important, not a piece of candy.0 -
So funny that people think that what works for them works for everyone. For me, I feel more energy/satiation (and less craving) eating lower sugar/lower carbs. But not everybody is the same. I do limit sugar/carbs -- but other people do better on more carbs less sugar.0
-
So funny that people think that what works for them works for everyone. For me, I feel more energy/satiation (and less craving) eating lower sugar/lower carbs. But not everybody is the same. I do limit sugar/carbs -- but other people do better on more carbs less sugar.
What's funnier is that you think people are arguing that personal preferences are irrelevant and identical between people. They aren't. But they are arguing the actual science involved.0 -
Upstream someone was disturbed about the government and the ADA communication about sugar. I'm not sure what is disturbing.
Diabetes.org speaks about sugar in context with all carbs here, and I think it is a balanced approach.
http://www.diabetes.org/food-and-fitness/food/what-can-i-eat/understanding-carbohydrates/sugar-and-desserts.html
Again, when eating for diabetes control I did not worry about my fruit intake and I averaged at least two servings a day.
That was me. I believe these organisations should mention going low carb as a possible treatment plan since moderate carbs don't always work. I know some people do fine treating IR with moderate carbs, but not everyone does, whereas most people with IR do better on a low carb diet
I'm prediabetic and eat a very low carb ketogenic diet to treat my insulin resistance. I ate fewer than 20g of carbs for three months and my blood glucose was usually normal. For the last month I increased my calories to maintenance level and my carbs too. I was eating under 50g of carbs per day but usually over 30g. Those carbs came from snap peas, celery, carrots, coconut and nuts, and a bit more veggie throughout my day. It wasn't much. No carbage beyond a sugar free crustless cheese cake I made, and my prediabetic fasting blood glucose was back. Consistently. Darn it.
I have tightened up my carb limit again and BG is back to normal levels. THE ADA and CDA should be telling people about a low carb diet because some of us need it... At least provide it as option B! KWIM?
I had to go against my endocrinologist's wishes in order to normalize my blood glucose. I think that I should have at least been told about a low carb option. If I was the type of person who didn't take charge of my own health, my insulin resistance would probably still be uncontrolled.
There's a reason agencies are highly conservative in their diet advice. WHO advises limiting free sugars and suddenly people are limiting their fruit intake.
Diabetics at risk of going low on their sugar absolutely need carbohydrates.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »For people who have to watch their sugar number, it does not matter if the sugars are so called "healthy" or not. Sugar is still sugar.
This isn't true. For diabetics fructose usually doesn't have the same impact on blood sugar levels. Grapes, for example, are a high sugar fruit but they are also high in fructose and usually don't spike blood glucose levels like candy will.
Yes it is true that sugar is sugar. A diabetic's pancreas does not work properly, therefore they must watch the overall carbs according to their doctor's instructions.
Yet when they eat grapes the little meter does not show the same result as if they eat an equal amount of sugar from candy. That kind of sounds different.
I'm sorry, what little meter?
It's not about the sugar, it's about some bodies not metabolizing sugar very well, and it can be candy or fruit or anything else with sugar. It's the overall picture of food eaten throughout the day that's important, not a piece of candy.
This is just not a good description or prescription for people with insulin issues, though. That's where you do get into discussion of the quick absorption, spiking glucose levels, GI/GL, fiber, and that whole 9 yards. Which we've all just had, lol.
I'll just agree to disagree about whether candy or fruit matters for a diabetic or IR folks (and the similar, albeit much more vague, 'sugar is sugar').0 -
girlviernes wrote: »nvmomketo, are you still overweight? I need to research this more, but I think very low carb can also increase insulin resistance so you might have a "bounce back" effect.
No, I'm not.I recently lost 35 lbs and now weigh 155 lbs at 5'8". I wear a size 10. I still want to lose a few. My BMI is normal at 23.6.Upstream someone was disturbed about the government and the ADA communication about sugar. I'm not sure what is disturbing.
Diabetes.org speaks about sugar in context with all carbs here, and I think it is a balanced approach.
http://www.diabetes.org/food-and-fitness/food/what-can-i-eat/understanding-carbohydrates/sugar-and-desserts.html
Again, when eating for diabetes control I did not worry about my fruit intake and I averaged at least two servings a day.
That was me. I believe these organisations should mention going low carb as a possible treatment plan since moderate carbs don't always work. I know some people do fine treating IR with moderate carbs, but not everyone does, whereas most people with IR do better on a low carb diet
I'm prediabetic and eat a very low carb ketogenic diet to treat my insulin resistance. I ate fewer than 20g of carbs for three months and my blood glucose was usually normal. For the last month I increased my calories to maintenance level and my carbs too. I was eating under 50g of carbs per day but usually over 30g. Those carbs came from snap peas, celery, carrots, coconut and nuts, and a bit more veggie throughout my day. It wasn't much. No carbage beyond a sugar free crustless cheese cake I made, and my prediabetic fasting blood glucose was back. Consistently. Darn it.
I have tightened up my carb limit again and BG is back to normal levels. THE ADA and CDA should be telling people about a low carb diet because some of us need it... At least provide it as option B! KWIM?
I had to go against my endocrinologist's wishes in order to normalize my blood glucose. I think that I should have at least been told about a low carb option. If I was the type of person who didn't take charge of my own health, my insulin resistance would probably still be uncontrolled.
There's a reason agencies are highly conservative in their diet advice. WHO advises limiting free sugars and suddenly people are limiting their fruit intake.
Diabetics at risk of going low on their sugar absolutely need carbohydrates.
Low blood sugars is mainly an issue of T1D and those T2Ds who have burned out their pancreas.
Reactive hypoglycaemic lows are perpetuated by a higher carb diet. I had reactive hypoglycaemia, and would shake and feel badly if I didn't eat every few hours. After going very LCHF, I was no longer relying on glucose for fuel and if I stay in ketosis I never go hypoglycaemic.
Because I felt I was out of ketosis lately, I decided to do a "fat fast" which isn't actually a fast, just a very low calorie day with only fat to eat. In the morning my BG was 5.8 or so. At 2:00 I felt cranky and shaky and my BG was a 3.8. At this point I still tested negative for ketones on a keto stix. I played basketball for half an hour, felt better, now was positive for ketones and my BG was 3.5. Because my brain was now getting ketones, I felt fine. This morning after not eating (much) for a day, my FBG was 4.8, and I am again no longer reliant on carbs for fuel. Instead I have my steady source of fat for fuel to rely on.0 -
cafeaulait7 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »For people who have to watch their sugar number, it does not matter if the sugars are so called "healthy" or not. Sugar is still sugar.
This isn't true. For diabetics fructose usually doesn't have the same impact on blood sugar levels. Grapes, for example, are a high sugar fruit but they are also high in fructose and usually don't spike blood glucose levels like candy will.
Yes it is true that sugar is sugar. A diabetic's pancreas does not work properly, therefore they must watch the overall carbs according to their doctor's instructions.
Yet when they eat grapes the little meter does not show the same result as if they eat an equal amount of sugar from candy. That kind of sounds different.
I'm sorry, what little meter?
It's not about the sugar, it's about some bodies not metabolizing sugar very well, and it can be candy or fruit or anything else with sugar. It's the overall picture of food eaten throughout the day that's important, not a piece of candy.
This is just not a good description or prescription for people with insulin issues, though. That's where you do get into discussion of the quick absorption, spiking glucose levels, GI/GL, fiber, and that whole 9 yards. Which we've all just had, lol.
I'll just agree to disagree about whether candy or fruit matters for a diabetic or IR folks (and the similar, albeit much more vague, 'sugar is sugar').
I know numerous diabetics, including family who are type 1, and they eat moderate carbs, including candy and other sweets once in awhile, and they manage very well, lol.
It's the overall pucture, not just one snapshot that matters.
0 -
-
BreakOnThru wrote: »For what it's worth, a friend of mine who was recently on Weight Watchers for the second time told me they now allow as much fruit as a person wants; it doesn't count toward your daily points. So it seems like they've come around to the fact that fruit is good, and as long as you're eating more of it and avoiding brownies and Snickers bars, you're doing all right.
There is nothing wrong with brownies and snicker bars. While fruit has more fiber and different nutrients than the snickers and brownies, none of these foods are good or bad, they are just foods. Everything in moderation.
Except that one snickers bar has 47g of sugar and 488 calories versus an apple with 10g sugar and 52 calories, if you're wanting to lose weight then fresh nutritious fruit wins over chocolate bars every time...but I do agree everything in moderation
0 -
tasharosesmith wrote: »BreakOnThru wrote: »For what it's worth, a friend of mine who was recently on Weight Watchers for the second time told me they now allow as much fruit as a person wants; it doesn't count toward your daily points. So it seems like they've come around to the fact that fruit is good, and as long as you're eating more of it and avoiding brownies and Snickers bars, you're doing all right.
There is nothing wrong with brownies and snicker bars. While fruit has more fiber and different nutrients than the snickers and brownies, none of these foods are good or bad, they are just foods. Everything in moderation.
Except that one snickers bar has 47g of sugar and 488 calories versus an apple with 10g sugar and 52 calories, if you're wanting to lose weight then fresh nutritious fruit wins over chocolate bars every time...but I do agree everything in moderation
Are you talking about a king sized snickers bar or something?
Serving Size 1 unit (52.7g) Calories 250
Servings Per Container 1 Calories from Fat 110
Amount/Serving %DV*
Total Fat 12g 18%
Sat. Fat 4.5g 23%
Trans Fat 0g
Cholest. 5mg 2%
Sodium 120mg 5%
Total Carb. 33g 11%
Dietary Fiber 1g 4%
Sugars 27g
Protein 4g
Vitamin A *
Vitamin C *
Calcium 4%
Iron 2%0 -
Protranser wrote: »tasharosesmith wrote: »BreakOnThru wrote: »For what it's worth, a friend of mine who was recently on Weight Watchers for the second time told me they now allow as much fruit as a person wants; it doesn't count toward your daily points. So it seems like they've come around to the fact that fruit is good, and as long as you're eating more of it and avoiding brownies and Snickers bars, you're doing all right.
There is nothing wrong with brownies and snicker bars. While fruit has more fiber and different nutrients than the snickers and brownies, none of these foods are good or bad, they are just foods. Everything in moderation.
Except that one snickers bar has 47g of sugar and 488 calories versus an apple with 10g sugar and 52 calories, if you're wanting to lose weight then fresh nutritious fruit wins over chocolate bars every time...but I do agree everything in moderation
Are you talking about a king sized snickers bar or something?
Serving Size 1 unit (52.7g) Calories 250
Servings Per Container 1 Calories from Fat 110
Amount/Serving %DV*
Sugars 27g
Lol and an apple is closer to 19-30 g of sugar NOT 10g.
Confirmation bias - giant snickers vs. tiny apples.0 -
Protranser wrote: »tasharosesmith wrote: »BreakOnThru wrote: »For what it's worth, a friend of mine who was recently on Weight Watchers for the second time told me they now allow as much fruit as a person wants; it doesn't count toward your daily points. So it seems like they've come around to the fact that fruit is good, and as long as you're eating more of it and avoiding brownies and Snickers bars, you're doing all right.
There is nothing wrong with brownies and snicker bars. While fruit has more fiber and different nutrients than the snickers and brownies, none of these foods are good or bad, they are just foods. Everything in moderation.
Except that one snickers bar has 47g of sugar and 488 calories versus an apple with 10g sugar and 52 calories, if you're wanting to lose weight then fresh nutritious fruit wins over chocolate bars every time...but I do agree everything in moderation
Are you talking about a king sized snickers bar or something?
Serving Size 1 unit (52.7g) Calories 250
Servings Per Container 1 Calories from Fat 110
Amount/Serving %DV*
Total Fat 12g 18%
Sat. Fat 4.5g 23%
Trans Fat 0g
Cholest. 5mg 2%
Sodium 120mg 5%
Total Carb. 33g 11%
Dietary Fiber 1g 4%
Sugars 27g
Protein 4g
Vitamin A *
Vitamin C *
Calcium 4%
Iron 2%
0 -
tasharosesmith wrote: »Protranser wrote: »tasharosesmith wrote: »BreakOnThru wrote: »For what it's worth, a friend of mine who was recently on Weight Watchers for the second time told me they now allow as much fruit as a person wants; it doesn't count toward your daily points. So it seems like they've come around to the fact that fruit is good, and as long as you're eating more of it and avoiding brownies and Snickers bars, you're doing all right.
There is nothing wrong with brownies and snicker bars. While fruit has more fiber and different nutrients than the snickers and brownies, none of these foods are good or bad, they are just foods. Everything in moderation.
Except that one snickers bar has 47g of sugar and 488 calories versus an apple with 10g sugar and 52 calories, if you're wanting to lose weight then fresh nutritious fruit wins over chocolate bars every time...but I do agree everything in moderation
Are you talking about a king sized snickers bar or something?
Serving Size 1 unit (52.7g) Calories 250
Servings Per Container 1 Calories from Fat 110
Amount/Serving %DV*
Total Fat 12g 18%
Sat. Fat 4.5g 23%
Trans Fat 0g
Cholest. 5mg 2%
Sodium 120mg 5%
Total Carb. 33g 11%
Dietary Fiber 1g 4%
Sugars 27g
Protein 4g
Vitamin A *
Vitamin C *
Calcium 4%
Iron 2%
I googled it...and if you're trying to lose weight why would you eat chocolate over fruit?0 -
-
tasharosesmith wrote: »tasharosesmith wrote: »Protranser wrote: »tasharosesmith wrote: »BreakOnThru wrote: »For what it's worth, a friend of mine who was recently on Weight Watchers for the second time told me they now allow as much fruit as a person wants; it doesn't count toward your daily points. So it seems like they've come around to the fact that fruit is good, and as long as you're eating more of it and avoiding brownies and Snickers bars, you're doing all right.
There is nothing wrong with brownies and snicker bars. While fruit has more fiber and different nutrients than the snickers and brownies, none of these foods are good or bad, they are just foods. Everything in moderation.
Except that one snickers bar has 47g of sugar and 488 calories versus an apple with 10g sugar and 52 calories, if you're wanting to lose weight then fresh nutritious fruit wins over chocolate bars every time...but I do agree everything in moderation
Are you talking about a king sized snickers bar or something?
Serving Size 1 unit (52.7g) Calories 250
Servings Per Container 1 Calories from Fat 110
Amount/Serving %DV*
Total Fat 12g 18%
Sat. Fat 4.5g 23%
Trans Fat 0g
Cholest. 5mg 2%
Sodium 120mg 5%
Total Carb. 33g 11%
Dietary Fiber 1g 4%
Sugars 27g
Protein 4g
Vitamin A *
Vitamin C *
Calcium 4%
Iron 2%
I googled it...and if you're trying to lose weight why would you eat chocolate over fruit?
Sure, I might choose an apple in this moment over chocolate. But I lost the vast majority of my weight eating chocolate every day. A life without rational amounts of chocolate does not sound like a balanced life. If I've eaten fruit and fiber and protein today and I have calories left, there is a strong chance wine, cheese or chocolate will be at the end of the day.0 -
tasharosesmith wrote: »tasharosesmith wrote: »Protranser wrote: »tasharosesmith wrote: »BreakOnThru wrote: »For what it's worth, a friend of mine who was recently on Weight Watchers for the second time told me they now allow as much fruit as a person wants; it doesn't count toward your daily points. So it seems like they've come around to the fact that fruit is good, and as long as you're eating more of it and avoiding brownies and Snickers bars, you're doing all right.
There is nothing wrong with brownies and snicker bars. While fruit has more fiber and different nutrients than the snickers and brownies, none of these foods are good or bad, they are just foods. Everything in moderation.
Except that one snickers bar has 47g of sugar and 488 calories versus an apple with 10g sugar and 52 calories, if you're wanting to lose weight then fresh nutritious fruit wins over chocolate bars every time...but I do agree everything in moderation
Are you talking about a king sized snickers bar or something?
Serving Size 1 unit (52.7g) Calories 250
Servings Per Container 1 Calories from Fat 110
Amount/Serving %DV*
Total Fat 12g 18%
Sat. Fat 4.5g 23%
Trans Fat 0g
Cholest. 5mg 2%
Sodium 120mg 5%
Total Carb. 33g 11%
Dietary Fiber 1g 4%
Sugars 27g
Protein 4g
Vitamin A *
Vitamin C *
Calcium 4%
Iron 2%
I googled it...and if you're trying to lose weight why would you eat chocolate over fruit?
You probably googled per 100g.0 -
tasharosesmith wrote: »tasharosesmith wrote: »Protranser wrote: »tasharosesmith wrote: »BreakOnThru wrote: »For what it's worth, a friend of mine who was recently on Weight Watchers for the second time told me they now allow as much fruit as a person wants; it doesn't count toward your daily points. So it seems like they've come around to the fact that fruit is good, and as long as you're eating more of it and avoiding brownies and Snickers bars, you're doing all right.
There is nothing wrong with brownies and snicker bars. While fruit has more fiber and different nutrients than the snickers and brownies, none of these foods are good or bad, they are just foods. Everything in moderation.
Except that one snickers bar has 47g of sugar and 488 calories versus an apple with 10g sugar and 52 calories, if you're wanting to lose weight then fresh nutritious fruit wins over chocolate bars every time...but I do agree everything in moderation
Are you talking about a king sized snickers bar or something?
Serving Size 1 unit (52.7g) Calories 250
Servings Per Container 1 Calories from Fat 110
Amount/Serving %DV*
Total Fat 12g 18%
Sat. Fat 4.5g 23%
Trans Fat 0g
Cholest. 5mg 2%
Sodium 120mg 5%
Total Carb. 33g 11%
Dietary Fiber 1g 4%
Sugars 27g
Protein 4g
Vitamin A *
Vitamin C *
Calcium 4%
Iron 2%
I googled it...and if you're trying to lose weight why would you eat chocolate over fruit?
LOLsigh
Because a Snickers is delicious and provides more energy in case that's what is needed in a particular instance?
Losing weight is not a matter of minimizing calories. (In fact, I've always argued that in most cases it's likely helpful to find the *most* calories you can consume while still making satisfactory progress towards goals for many reasons including energy levels, compliance, happiness, etc.)0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K 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
- 395 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 959 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions