Maybe Sugar IS the Devil - US Goverment Diet Recommendations
Options
Replies
-
The problem with the media often, as I notice when they cover my field (outside of very specialized media sources) or other things I know a lot about, is that they often aren't particularly knowledgeable and don't bother to understand the underlying facts so as to be able to notice if quoted experts are making no sense or, more significantly, should be called on certain things or asked more pointed questions.
I'm also aware of media outlets basically just reprinting press releases, including from quite biased sources, without doing what I would think should be their job. It's too bad, and no doubt not going to get any better given how hard it is for traditional papers to make a go of it these days.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
That's my point, though. I'm OK with people restricting added sugar if they wish, but if it were the embodiment of pure evil I don't think it would be recommended at all.
It's not like the government recommends smoking no more than 1 pack of cigarettes a day, fr'instance. The recommendation is "do not smoke".
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....
are deviled eggs 'the embodiment of pure evil'?
not sure how deviled = devil ...
have you ever made a positive comparison that referenced the devil...?
Yes. Devil's Food Cake is delicious.
Does that mean the calories in angel's food cake don't count?
0 -
Wiseandcurious wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
That's my point, though. I'm OK with people restricting added sugar if they wish, but if it were the embodiment of pure evil I don't think it would be recommended at all.
It's not like the government recommends smoking no more than 1 pack of cigarettes a day, fr'instance. The recommendation is "do not smoke".
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....
are deviled eggs 'the embodiment of pure evil'?
not sure how deviled = devil ...
have you ever made a positive comparison that referenced the devil...?
Yes. Devil's Food Cake is delicious.
Does that mean the calories in angel's food cake don't count?
No, but if you eat angel's food cake and devil's food cake at the same time, they'll do battle in your belly (resulting in a bad case of gas).0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/01/07/federal-dietary-guidelines/77151060/
From the article:
"The 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommends limiting the amount of added sugars in our diet to no more than 10% of daily calories. That's about 12 teaspoons of sugar a day. To put that in perspective, a can of Coke contains nearly 10 teaspoons.
Most of us would have to make big changes in our diets to follow the new guidelines.
Americans on average get about 13% of daily calories from added sugars; teens get closer to 17% of calories from added sugars, according to the new report. The natural sugar in foods such as raisins, apples or milk are not considered added sugars.
Nearly half of the added sugars in American diets come from sweetened beverages, such as sodas and sports drinks, according to the guidelines, published by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health and Human Services."
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.
I wonder what percentage of Americans eat SAD? What is the definition of SAD?
I mean, I personally eat sad fairly often..
*sigh*
0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Wiseandcurious wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
That's my point, though. I'm OK with people restricting added sugar if they wish, but if it were the embodiment of pure evil I don't think it would be recommended at all.
It's not like the government recommends smoking no more than 1 pack of cigarettes a day, fr'instance. The recommendation is "do not smoke".
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....
are deviled eggs 'the embodiment of pure evil'?
not sure how deviled = devil ...
have you ever made a positive comparison that referenced the devil...?
Yes. Devil's Food Cake is delicious.
Does that mean the calories in angel's food cake don't count?
No, but if you eat angel's food cake and devil's food cake at the same time, they'll do battle in your belly (resulting in a bad case of gas).
But all of that battling in the belly will burn loads of calories won't it?0 -
ChrisM8971 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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.
I don't know, informing the population that fats were harmful without scientific evidence seems pretty demonising of fats
it wouldn't be, but did the govt. do that? Did they ever say "fats are harmful"? Other than maybe trans fats.0 -
ChrisM8971 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Wiseandcurious wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
That's my point, though. I'm OK with people restricting added sugar if they wish, but if it were the embodiment of pure evil I don't think it would be recommended at all.
It's not like the government recommends smoking no more than 1 pack of cigarettes a day, fr'instance. The recommendation is "do not smoke".
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....
are deviled eggs 'the embodiment of pure evil'?
not sure how deviled = devil ...
have you ever made a positive comparison that referenced the devil...?
Yes. Devil's Food Cake is delicious.
Does that mean the calories in angel's food cake don't count?
No, but if you eat angel's food cake and devil's food cake at the same time, they'll do battle in your belly (resulting in a bad case of gas).
But all of that battling in the belly will burn loads of calories won't it?
Possible...but I'm waiting on the peer reviewed studies before I say definitively that it will.0 -
ChrisM8971 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Wiseandcurious wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
That's my point, though. I'm OK with people restricting added sugar if they wish, but if it were the embodiment of pure evil I don't think it would be recommended at all.
It's not like the government recommends smoking no more than 1 pack of cigarettes a day, fr'instance. The recommendation is "do not smoke".
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....
are deviled eggs 'the embodiment of pure evil'?
not sure how deviled = devil ...
have you ever made a positive comparison that referenced the devil...?
Yes. Devil's Food Cake is delicious.
Does that mean the calories in angel's food cake don't count?
No, but if you eat angel's food cake and devil's food cake at the same time, they'll do battle in your belly (resulting in a bad case of gas).
But all of that battling in the belly will burn loads of calories won't it?
Yup. The two cakes cancel each other out.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ChrisM8971 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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.
I don't know, informing the population that fats were harmful without scientific evidence seems pretty demonising of fats
it wouldn't be, but did the govt. do that? Did they ever say "fats are harmful"? Other than maybe trans fats.
Yes I believe they did, well here in the UK anyway, they promoted the big scare of Cholesterol and saturated fats, which has now been shown to be untrue0 -
juggernaut1974 wrote: »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.
I admit the sugar is the devil was tongue in cheek and agree with your thoughts and those of many posters on moderation.
I also agree thw guidelines on added sugar are very directionally correct and feel the excess sugar hidden in many products is a large factor in many people's weight issues.
0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »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.
I admit the sugar is the devil was tongue in cheek and agree with your thoughts and those of many posters on moderation.
I also agree thw guidelines on added sugar are very directionally correct and feel the excess sugar hidden in many products is a large factor in many people's weight issues.
I think that this is where my belief that nutritional education comes in, excess sugar is not hidden in any product, its right there on the nutritional label its just that a large proportion of the population in general won't even look at that label0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ChrisM8971 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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.
I don't know, informing the population that fats were harmful without scientific evidence seems pretty demonising of fats
it wouldn't be, but did the govt. do that? Did they ever say "fats are harmful"? Other than maybe trans fats.
The 1980 and 1985 guidelines seem sensible enough and even go on to say that some people can eat high fat diets and be perfectly healthy, acknowledges the controversy and states the recommendations aren't meant to restrict any foods.
Jump forward ten years to the 1990 guidelines and a low fat diet is advised and you're told in order to maintain health you need to eat a diet low in fat, saturated fat and cholesterol and they specifically tell you to choose lean meats, fish, poultry without skin, and lowfat dairy products and use fats and oils sparingly.
Gone are the paragraphs in the 1980 guidelines telling people that many high fat foods provide quality protein and many essential vitamins and minerals and that things like eggs, full fat dairy and organ meats can be eaten in moderation. They replaced that section with prescriptive limits and advice on how to eat as little fat as possible.
Source
ETA: Actually 1990 guidelines do acknowledge that high fat foods are nutritious but go on to list low fat alternatives. But the tone and the advice definitely changed and the opening paragraph on the section on fat starts off with this:
"Populations like ours with diets high in fat have more obesity and certain types of cancer. The higher levels of saturated fat and cholesterol in our diets are linked to our risk for heart disease."
Scary stuff.
0 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ChrisM8971 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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.
I don't know, informing the population that fats were harmful without scientific evidence seems pretty demonising of fats
it wouldn't be, but did the govt. do that? Did they ever say "fats are harmful"? Other than maybe trans fats.
The 1980 and 1985 guidelines seem sensible enough and even go on to say that some people can eat high fat diets and be perfectly healthy, acknowledges the controversy and states the recommendations aren't meant to restrict any foods.
Jump forward ten years to the 1990 guidelines and a low fat diet is advised and you're told in order to maintain health you need to eat a diet low in fat, saturated fat and cholesterol and they specifically tell you to choose lean meats, fish, poultry without skin, and lowfat dairy products and use fats and oils sparingly.
Gone are the paragraphs in the 1980 guidelines telling people that many high fat foods provide quality protein and many essential vitamins and minerals and that things like eggs, full fat dairy and organ meats can be eaten in moderation. They replaced that section with prescriptive limits and advice on how to eat as little fat as possible.
Source
Ditto this.0 -
HappyCampr1 wrote: »I've resolved to not worry about this until the labeling requirements change and added sugars are listed separately on packages. Then, I might take a look and see where I am. Otherwise, I'm not worrying, as I have no sugar related health issues.
totally agree. until the labels are updated, how can we even track it anyway?0 -
The American Heart Association recommends that people limit their added sugar. Their recommendation for most women is 6 teaspoons and for most men 9 teaspoons or less of added sugar per day. Most added sugars in the average persons diet comes from soda, candy, baked goods, and dairy based desserts.0
-
Packerjohn wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »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.
I admit the sugar is the devil was tongue in cheek and agree with your thoughts and those of many posters on moderation.
I also agree thw guidelines on added sugar are very directionally correct and feel the excess sugar hidden in many products is a large factor in many people's weight issues.
I'm always intrigued by the statement that the hidden sugars in many processed foods are to something to watch out for if you are watching your weight. Why, exactly? Is it just that sugar adds calorie density to foods? Ok, fine. So I need to consider those calories and how they fit into my whole day in order to make sure that I don't exceed my calorie goal. Any other reason? People always throw out salad dressing as being a prime example of a food that has hidden sugars that we need to be wary of. A serving (2 Tbsp or 30g) of Kraft Ranch dressing has 110 calories and 1 gram of sugar. It says it right there on the label, so it isn't exactly hidden, and the calories are listed as well, so I can easily determine if that is something that I can accommodate in my day (110 calories - sure thing). 1 g doesn't seem excessive to me, in light of the guidelines we are discussing above.
So why exactly is the sugar in the salad dressing something I need to be concerned about if calories are what matter for weight loss?0 -
ChrisM8971 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »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.
I admit the sugar is the devil was tongue in cheek and agree with your thoughts and those of many posters on moderation.
I also agree thw guidelines on added sugar are very directionally correct and feel the excess sugar hidden in many products is a large factor in many people's weight issues.
I think that this is where my belief that nutritional education comes in, excess sugar is not hidden in any product, its right there on the nutritional label its just that a large proportion of the population in general won't even look at that label
I agree with this. Also, even the article we are discussing says something like half is from soda and energy/sport drinks. There could not be a more obvious source of sugar other than perhaps cake. The "oh, sugar is hidden in my food!" thing always seems like such a ridiculous excuse. I blame Katie Couric.0 -
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
Ah, but the Bible ALSO says that it's easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than for a sugar-eating man to get into heaven.
Some try to argue that the eye of a needle is a gate in Jerusalem that wasn't that hard for a camel to fit through, but they all work for BigSugar (or maybe the lobby for obese camels).0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »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.
I admit the sugar is the devil was tongue in cheek and agree with your thoughts and those of many posters on moderation.
I also agree thw guidelines on added sugar are very directionally correct and feel the excess sugar hidden in many products is a large factor in many people's weight issues.
I'm always intrigued by the statement that the hidden sugars in many processed foods are to something to watch out for if you are watching your weight. Why, exactly? Is it just that sugar adds calorie density to foods? Ok, fine. So I need to consider those calories and how they fit into my whole day in order to make sure that I don't exceed my calorie goal. Any other reason? People always throw out salad dressing as being a prime example of a food that has hidden sugars that we need to be wary of. A serving (2 Tbsp or 30g) of Kraft Ranch dressing has 110 calories and 1 gram of sugar. It says it right there on the label, so it isn't exactly hidden, and the calories are listed as well, so I can easily determine if that is something that I can accommodate in my day (110 calories - sure thing). 1 g doesn't seem excessive to me, in light of the guidelines we are discussing above.
So why exactly is the sugar in the salad dressing something I need to be concerned about if calories are what matter for weight loss?
Psh...are you just TRYING to make sense?0 -
it should be no added sugar at all... that's what fruit is for0
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
- 394 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
- 944 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions