We are pleased to announce that as of March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor has been introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!
Maybe Sugar IS the Devil - US Goverment Diet Recommendations
Replies
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
I doubt anyone saying sugar is the devil believes it is 'the embodiment of pure evil'. It's just a saying.
I mean if they truly believed it was evil, who would eat it at all??
because references to the devil never have anything to do with bad, evil, etc....
0 -
The Rolling Stones recorded Brown Sugar AND Sympathy for the Devil. (Both made it to #1 in the US.)
Just saying...0 -
stevencloser wrote: »
People smoke.
That they do. But I doubt any of them truly believe tobacco smoke is the embodiment of pure evil.0 -
juggernaut1974 wrote: »
SAD = standard American diet
Sorry, I was not asking what the acronym meant. What is the definition of "Standard American Diet"?0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Sorry, I was not asking what the acronym meant. What is the definition of "Standard American Diet"?
Isn't it just pizza and diet coke?0 -
because references to the devil never have anything to do with bad, evil, etc....
are deviled eggs 'the embodiment of pure evil'?0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »
Isn't it just pizza and diet coke?
Not much sugar in that.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
are deviled eggs 'the embodiment of pure evil'?
not sure how deviled = devil ...
have you ever made a positive comparison that referenced the devil...?0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Sorry, I was not asking what the acronym meant. What is the definition of "Standard American Diet"?
I've asked this a bunch, as well as tried to find how how it got defined, how many supposedly eat it, so on. It seems vague -- basically constructed from stats about how Americans spend food money.
These are kind of interesting: http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2014/01/standard-american-diet-sad-charts. This would be too, I suspect, if I had more than the abstract: http://ncp.sagepub.com/content/25/6/603.short
It used to puzzle me, since once upon a time I thought of the SAD as basically the stereotypical midwestern kind of eating we did when I was a kid -- meat, potatoes or some other starch, vegetables. Add to that either cereal or bacon and eggs for breakfast and a sandwich for lunch. NOT lots of soda or fast food or the like.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Not much sugar in that.
oh. I forgot the ice cream and sour patch kids.0 -
not sure how deviled = devil ...
have you ever made a positive comparison that referenced the devil...?
Hmm, good question. I don't actually reference the devil in comparisons often, but I think it would be to something that I liked a little too much. Which is both positive (like) and negative (too much). Which I suppose is the same as with sugar.0 -
A level --- LEVEL --- teaspoon of sugar is generally calculated at 16 calories. Most people, when scooping sweet into their coffee/tea/cereal etc. do not use a level teaspoon. It's more rounded, equalling more like 25 calories.juggernaut1974 wrote: »So I crunched some numbers...
A tsp of sugar has ~15 calories. According to the article, 12 tsp of added sugar a day is the recommendation (ie - 180 calories). That's supposed to represent 10% of the diet; ergo the assumption is a diet of 1800 calories.
But, to go by the report, that means a can of Coke has almost a fourth cup of sugar in it?????
And, btw, artificial sweeteners aren't any better. They may not have the calorie overload but they have their own damage control issues.
My sister and I used to have a joke about all the "Sugar is dah debil" stupid.
"It's not the sugar, it's the company it keeps."
And that's pretty true, actually. Most of the time, you find your added sugars in products full of fats. So, limiting one may help you limit the other. But, a little added sugar is not, as many have already noted, a bad thing.
0 -
The 12 tsp was not stated by the guidelines - it's what USA Today interpreted it to be. The actual guidelines simply say no more than 10% of intake from added sugars and no more than 10% from saturated fats.juggernaut1974 wrote: »So I crunched some numbers...
A tsp of sugar has ~15 calories. According to the article, 12 tsp of added sugar a day is the recommendation (ie - 180 calories). That's supposed to represent 10% of the diet; ergo the assumption is a diet of 1800 calories.
I wonder what percent of people eating SAD limit themselves to 1800 calories? My guess is not many.0 -
ReeseG4350 wrote: »A level --- LEVEL --- teaspoon of sugar is generally calculated at 16 calories. Most people, when scooping sweet into their coffee/tea/cereal etc. do not use a level teaspoon. It's more rounded, equalling more like 25 calories.
But, to go by the report, that means a can of Coke has almost a fourth cup of sugar in it?????
And, btw, artificial sweeteners aren't any better. They may not have the calorie overload but they have their own damage control issues.
My sister and I used to have a joke about all the "Sugar is dah debil" stupid.
"It's not the sugar, it's the company it keeps."
And that's pretty true, actually. Most of the time, you find your added sugars in products full of fats. So, limiting one may help you limit the other. But, a little added sugar is not, as many have already noted, a bad thing.
Neither is a little fat. In fact, it's necessary.0 -
0 -
not sure how deviled = devil ...
have you ever made a positive comparison that referenced the devil...?
Yes. Devil's Food Cake is delicious.
0 -
The 12 tsp was not stated by the guidelines - it's what USA Today interpreted it to be. The actual guidelines simply say no more than 10% of intake from added sugars and no more than 10% from saturated fats.
Yeah I guess that's the point I was trying to make..but didn't explicitly say.
The article is fear-mongering based upon what I think is a faulty assumption.
The OMG I can't have a can of Coke because it's gonna use up most of my "added sugar" limit assumes someone is only eating 1800 calories.
I maintain a healthy weight at about 2400...so 10% would be 240 calories or about 16tsp worth. A can of Coke could easily fit into that. And though I don't have any statistics at my fingertips, I would guess that given the obesity epidemic, a good portion of the population is eating more than I on average.
The other fear-mongering piece I've already pointed out (I have to make MAJOR changes to fit into the guideline).
0 -
Its far cheaper for governments to demonise a certain food group to try and limit calories and reduce the weight of a population (and therefore reduce associated health costs etc) than to educate about moderation and nutrition. Hence it was fats before it was sugars, just a way of trying to scare the population0
-
The Dietary Guidelines (how the gov't tries to educate people) are really quite reasonable, as is MyPlate. I'm as happy to criticize the gov't as many people, but here I think it's the media that deserves the criticism.
Or anyone equating sugar and the devil, of course.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »The Dietary Guidelines (how the gov't tries to educate people) are really quite reasonable, as is MyPlate. I'm as happy to criticize the gov't as many people, but here I think it's the media that deserves the criticism.
Or anyone equating sugar and the devil, of course.
I love this! Thank you!
The media (I refuse to call most of them journalists) deserve a lot of criticism about a lot of things.
Maybe the media is the devil
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Sorry, I was not asking what the acronym meant. What is the definition of "Standard American Diet"?
It's a vague, impossible-to-define term mostly used by sanctimonious people who demonize particular foods or food groups. It's even more vague and ridiculous than the term "clean eating". I think it's generally construed as something like "pigs who stuff nothing but fast food, candy and sodas down their throats 24 hours a day".0 -
ChrisM8971 wrote: »Its far cheaper for governments to demonise a certain food group to try and limit calories and reduce the weight of a population (and therefore reduce associated health costs etc) than to educate about moderation and nutrition. Hence it was fats before it was sugars, just a way of trying to scare the population
Has the govt. ever "demonized" a food or food group? Advising that we limit foods is pretty far from demonizing.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »The Dietary Guidelines (how the gov't tries to educate people) are really quite reasonable, as is MyPlate. I'm as happy to criticize the gov't as many people, but here I think it's the media that deserves the criticism.
Or anyone equating sugar and the devil, of course.
Yep...lest anyone misconstrue my comments in this thread, I think that the guidelines in this case are perfectly reasonable. Even as someone who tends to take the "all things in moderation" approach, I doubt I come close to more than 10% of calories from added sugar in my diet more than maybe a couple times a week.
My comments were geared toward the article, and the (I believe tongue-in-cheek) title of the thread.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »The Dietary Guidelines (how the gov't tries to educate people) are really quite reasonable, as is MyPlate. I'm as happy to criticize the gov't as many people, but here I think it's the media that deserves the criticism.
Or anyone equating sugar and the devil, of course.
How in the US do the government get the guidelines through to the population, in the UK it tends to be the media so you cant have one without the other unfortunately0 -
The greatest trick the devil ever played was convincing people he was sugar.
LOL0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Has the govt. ever "demonized" a food or food group? Advising that we limit foods is pretty far from demonizing.
I don't know, informing the population that fats were harmful without scientific evidence seems pretty demonising of fats0 -
ChrisM8971 wrote: »
How in the US do the government get the guidelines through to the population, in the UK it tends to be the media so you cant have one without the other unfortunately
You can get the guidelines in the US via government or health agency websites or email, but typically you hear about it in the media. The problem comes when the media tries to "interpret" it for us.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
You can get the guidelines in the US via government or health agency websites or email, but typically you hear about it in the media. The problem comes when the media tries to "interpret" it for us.
The part of the media that frustrates me currently with cherry picked views of nutritional advice are those who want to sensationalise for book promotional purposes. Its even worse when they a members of the medical profession0 -
Mister_Ladyfingers wrote: »Well according to the Bible it's not sugar that's the root of all evil. It's the LOVE of sugar that's the root of all evil. Go ahead and check. It's in one o them scriptures. *nods* true story
well in this case I am good and screwed. I might avoid it, but it holds a huge place in my heart 0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.7K Introduce Yourself
- 44K Getting Started
- 260.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.2K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 444 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.2K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4.1K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 1.3K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.8K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions