Maybe Sugar IS the Devil - US Goverment Diet Recommendations
Replies
-
Its really SAD to see (with all the information available today just a few clicks away) that some people still try to convince themselves that sugar can be good for you. There is absolutely nothing good about sugar in any form, we can tolerate loads of sugar yes, glucose is after all "biological fuel" but we should not be eating anything at all with sugar on the ingredients list.
This is the food industry that has been cleverly programming society for years and has got us all hooked on the stuff, all they need to do is keep adding sugar to all their new products and keep us addicted so we can keep buying more of their crap products, happy to say I'm 5 years clean, Had a few relapses perhaps every now and then (cough cough Christmas cough cough) but I know I'm never gonna be a full on addict ever again. Good luck to all of you.
I Vote for Banning Sugar!
http://www.naturalnews.com/047495_sugar_saccharin_addiction.html
While it's a whole another topic, there hasn't been any human studies that suggest sugar is addictive, but there is some studies that would promote hyperpalatable foods are the problem (we like foods with sugar, salt and fat).
And while we don't need to eat sugar, there are benefits from it from a training perspective (especially endurance athletes) and from a psychological perspective). Having a cookie, a muffin, or whatever helps me stay on track and helped me obtain a healthy weight.0 -
Its really SAD to see (with all the information available today just a few clicks away) that some people still try to convince themselves that sugar can be good for you. There is absolutely nothing good about sugar in any form, we can tolerate loads of sugar yes, glucose is after all "biological fuel" but we should not be eating anything at all with sugar on the ingredients list.
This is the food industry that has been cleverly programming society for years and has got us all hooked on the stuff, all they need to do is keep adding sugar to all their new products and keep us addicted so we can keep buying more of their crap products, happy to say I'm 5 years clean, Had a few relapses perhaps every now and then (cough cough Christmas cough cough) but I know I'm never gonna be a full on addict ever again. Good luck to all of you.
I Vote for Banning Sugar!
http://www.naturalnews.com/047495_sugar_saccharin_addiction.html
Ok, I will bite. Why is sugar bad for you? What negative health impacts will a person who does not have a medical reason to restrict sugars, suffer from, if they eat sugar within the guidelines outlined by the WHO?0 -
Its really SAD to see (with all the information available today just a few clicks away) that some people still try to convince themselves that sugar can be good for you. There is absolutely nothing good about sugar in any form, we can tolerate loads of sugar yes, glucose is after all "biological fuel" but we should not be eating anything at all with sugar on the ingredients list.
This is the food industry that has been cleverly programming society for years and has got us all hooked on the stuff, all they need to do is keep adding sugar to all their new products and keep us addicted so we can keep buying more of their crap products, happy to say I'm 5 years clean, Had a few relapses perhaps every now and then (cough cough Christmas cough cough) but I know I'm never gonna be a full on addict ever again. Good luck to all of you.
I Vote for Banning Sugar!
http://www.naturalnews.com/047495_sugar_saccharin_addiction.html
0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
I look at it from the standpoint that a lot of people should reduce the amount of added sugar and salt in their diet, not that they need to cut it all out.The whole point of the government guidelines can be summarized in the following manner.
PART 1: THE HISTORY- Americans are too fat
- Americans are too fat because they eat too much food
- Americans eat too much food because food is cheap and tastes good
- American food tastes good because it has sugar, salt and fat in it
- If we make American food taste bad, Americans will eat less
- If Americans eat less they will not be so fat.
PART 2: THE PRESENT- We tried to get Americans to give up fat
- Decades of public promotion of low-fat diets worked to get Americans to eat less fats
- Americans compensated for low-fat diets with more sugar and salt
- Americans are still eating way too much food.
- Therefore American food still tastes too good, even though it's low-fat.
PART 3: THE FUTURE- What makes American food taste good? The sugar and salt.
- Let's get Americans to give up their sugar and salt.
- Then American food will taste bad
- And Americans will quit eating too much
- And they won't be so fat.
Exactly. The real problem is that too many people see everything in black and white. No middle ground. "cut back" = "give up". "limit" becomes "avoid".
Maybe government sponsored vocabulary refresher courses would solve all our dietary problems.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »It is unreal how much sugar we use today.
We? I think it's pretty clear that you can't generalize.
I didn't eat large amounts of sugar when getting fat. It wasn't something I grew up with or adopted. I did eat some added sugar, because sugar (combined with fat and other things) is often part of a tasty pie or cookie or ice cream or even rhubarb sauce and not evil. Never been insulin resistant, never had other diet-related health issues, lost the weight eating as many carbs as I wanted and never once drinking lots of oil or butter in some coffee (plus, coffee tastes best black).
Take the "we" as in "we as a society". Just because YOU personally don't doesn't make it less unreal
If you buy packaged goods look at the sugar added to random foods : ketchup is an obvious example, dressings, some savory snacks, coleslaw mentioned by @GaleHawkins
I don't eat a lot of sugar. I strongly don't have anything against sugar either. I don't even track it on MFP tbh.
You know, most of the sugar in ketchup comes from the tomatoes.0 -
Very reasonable guidelines.0
-
stevencloser wrote: »
Not sure what you mean, but I would not assume a rule for one food applies to all. So I think, no?0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Very reasonable guidelines.
Agreed. It translates to about 10tsp per day of added sugar which seems pretty darn doable.0 -
Its really SAD to see (with all the information available today just a few clicks away) that some people still try to convince themselves that sugar can be good for you. There is absolutely nothing good about sugar in any form, we can tolerate loads of sugar yes, glucose is after all "biological fuel" but we should not be eating anything at all with sugar on the ingredients list.
This is the food industry that has been cleverly programming society for years and has got us all hooked on the stuff, all they need to do is keep adding sugar to all their new products and keep us addicted so we can keep buying more of their crap products, happy to say I'm 5 years clean, Had a few relapses perhaps every now and then (cough cough Christmas cough cough) but I know I'm never gonna be a full on addict ever again. Good luck to all of you.
I Vote for Banning Sugar!
http://www.naturalnews.com/047495_sugar_saccharin_addiction.html
sugar addiction has never been proven in human trials.
yes, sugar can be a part of a healthy diet as long as one is hitting micro nutrient goals and is within their calorie allotment.
So I assume that you do not eat bread, vegetables, fruits, etc, because sugar is bad? Are you also calling for a ban on fruit and vegetables, because "sugar is bad"?0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
Not sure what you mean, but I would not assume a rule for one food applies to all. So I think, no?
There's fats in avocados, nuts etc. so no need to add oil to your steak. That's the same logic is what I'm saying.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
Not sure what you mean, but I would not assume a rule for one food applies to all. So I think, no?
There's fats in avocados, nuts etc. so no need to add oil to your steak. That's the same logic is what I'm saying.
Are you saying 5 to 6 tablespoons of coconut oil eaten daily probably isn't needed?
0 -
Also please cite a source on your claim that zero carbs are required for good health....
The US Institutes of Medicine were unable to identify a minimum requirement for carbohydrates, or an optimum. https://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/DRI/DRI_Energy/energy_full_report.pdf p275.
that was not my question ..
you asked for evidence. They couldn't find any, so I'm not trying.
I asked that poster to support their statement that zero carbs are required for good health …your "study" does not appear to address that and I did not ask about minimum requirements.
There are actually two statements.. 1. Are cabs necessary (maybe because I have seen some research that suggest some level of carbs is required. I believe @stevecloser posted it previously) and 2. Are the required for good health. The latter, I think many of us would agree that carbs are beneficial as veggies/carbs have a lot of nutrients that support health.
I don't think that was me.0 -
Also please cite a source on your claim that zero carbs are required for good health....
The US Institutes of Medicine were unable to identify a minimum requirement for carbohydrates, or an optimum. https://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/DRI/DRI_Energy/energy_full_report.pdf p275.
that was not my question ..
you asked for evidence. They couldn't find any, so I'm not trying.
I asked that poster to support their statement that zero carbs are required for good health …your "study" does not appear to address that and I did not ask about minimum requirements.
a) it isn't a study, it's an expert report rather than randoms on the internet
b) it addressed the question of an optimum - it disagrees with the idea that zero are optimal because it couldn't identify an optimum - be it zero or another number.
Did the statement mean "there are no carbs that are required for good health" or "for good health you require zero carbohydrate intake" I wonder.
so you admit that you are defending a statement that you do not understand?
0 -
I'm sure there are plenty of people in the US susceptible to added sugars, but the issue with a lot of these sorts of studies is they don't take into account individual dietary needs. That said, when looking at ALL sugars, I eat anywhere between 76 to 232 of my calories from sugar (diet with 1930). But that's including fruits. So I'm not too concerned personally if it is true. Added sugar is a pretty rare thing for me. I like spicy foods more than sweet and beer over soda.0
-
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Very reasonable guidelines.
Agreed. It translates to about 10tsp per day of added sugar which seems pretty darn doable.
Absolutely. If one truly IS moderating, it should be pretty doable. I have much less, but that's my preference.0 -
Its really SAD to see (with all the information available today just a few clicks away) that some people still try to convince themselves that sugar can be good for you.
None of the information supports the idea that all sugar or any amount of sugar is bad for you, and the evidence that it's bad apart from the role in weight gain (calories) is weak -- the best evidence of that is related to high consumption of sugar-added (HFCS) drinks.There is absolutely nothing good about sugar in any form, we can tolerate loads of sugar yes, glucose is after all "biological fuel" but we should not be eating anything at all with sugar on the ingredients list.
This is absurd. As you note, sugar is fuel and it's prevalent in foods that are very good for us, like vegetables, fruits, dairy. Indeed, it's in breast milk.This is the food industry that has been cleverly programming society for years and has got us all hooked on the stuff, all they need to do is keep adding sugar to all their new products and keep us addicted so we can keep buying more of their crap products, happy to say I'm 5 years clean
Anyone who buys food because they can't resist the "food industry" is pathetic, sorry. And I'm not hooked on food industry items -- most of the stuff referred to doesn't even taste good to me. Doesn't mean I don't like some foods with sugar, like my homemade apple pie or, you know, a clementine or brussels sprouts.0 -
Its really SAD to see (with all the information available today just a few clicks away) that some people still try to convince themselves that sugar can be good for you. There is absolutely nothing good about sugar in any form, we can tolerate loads of sugar yes, glucose is after all "biological fuel" but we should not be eating anything at all with sugar on the ingredients list.
This is the food industry that has been cleverly programming society for years and has got us all hooked on the stuff, all they need to do is keep adding sugar to all their new products and keep us addicted so we can keep buying more of their crap products, happy to say I'm 5 years clean, Had a few relapses perhaps every now and then (cough cough Christmas cough cough) but I know I'm never gonna be a full on addict ever again. Good luck to all of you.
I Vote for Banning Sugar!
http://www.naturalnews.com/047495_sugar_saccharin_addiction.html
sugar addiction has never been proven in human trials.
yes, sugar can be a part of a healthy diet as long as one is hitting micro nutrient goals and is within their calorie allotment.
So I assume that you do not eat bread, vegetables, fruits, etc, because sugar is bad? Are you also calling for a ban on fruit and vegetables, because "sugar is bad"?
Spot on! I dont eat bread, pasta, don't drink milk, pretty much any form of sugar and yes I stay far away from sugary vegetables and fruits, you cant really pull sugar out of vegetables and you cant go without eating vegetables so I guess you got me there, I eat sugar in vegetables and some fruits.
Sugar addiction hasn't been proven in human trials because any study that threatens the food industry is shutdown before it can even make it to public eye, most people are so dam clueless how addicted they are, just look next time you go shopping how much sugar is in the trollies, on the shelves, it's everywhere.
when the body doesn't have enough sugar in the blood it has many ways of producing sugar from fats and even proteins, I'm very active and fit, concious of what goes into my body and how I exercise, I've never needed sugars even when running the 10K charity races I attend 3-4 times per year.
The real lie you have been programmed to believe is that sugar can be good for you. why dont you try go zero sugar for a couple weeks and see how you feel, when you try raise arguments promoting sugars trust me I know what you are going through, I was there once, its the addiction talking, kick it and you'll feel a million times better, you wont need to watch your weight and your body will look after itself.
Or just ignore my advice and convince yourself that sugar is ok, and that these food giants are looking out for your health and not just worried about profits and shareholders, convince yourself that you are doing great just the way you are, I suspect that most if not all people suffering from some form of metobolic disease thought the same thing before they were diagnosed, Nobody is going to care about your health over their profits or the economy. Take some responsibility and read books, (you can start with "Pure, White and deadly"), the information is all over the web, you want to be truly healthy and live a long disease free healthy life then there's nothing stopping you.
If you want to keep eating sugar becuase it tastes nice and makes you feel good then go ahead, but thats all you eating it for, but just know it comes at a hefty price in the long term.
Sorry for stepping on people toes here, I dont post on these forums I just saw this post and it pains me to see how addicted society is to this stuff, thought even if I help 1 person move to the path of kicking the habit it would be worth this post. good luck guys, wish you all a long and healthy life
0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Very reasonable guidelines.
Agreed. It translates to about 10tsp per day of added sugar which seems pretty darn doable.
Absolutely. If one truly IS moderating, it should be pretty doable. I have much less, but that's my preference.
What I found most objectionable about the article was that it suggested that it would be so difficult for most people. Even the article itself didn't support that conclusion -- basically, if you look at the stats about sodas it seems like many people who are above the recommended limit could go below it just by cutting out or way down on soda or energy drinks and given averages that probably others are likely to be below it already.
And that's without even focusing on sugary cereals or packaged sweets, which a lot of people could probably easily cut down on.
I really don't think anyone is consuming huge quantities of sugar without being well-aware of it and how they are doing it. That doesn't mean they've thought through how much they are eating -- the amount in a soda or energy drink is pretty shocking, same with a bowl of many cereals (glad I don't care for these products) -- but that's because people often prefer to eat mindlessly. (I sometimes actively avoided looking at calories posted when I was fat, since I knew they'd make me feel bad about eating what I wanted to eat.) That people don't know that a donut has sugar (or whatever) is of course not true.
(On the other hand, given discussions at MFP, I am starting to think that many assume a donut is purely "carbs" and lacks any fat at all, which is also absurd.)0 -
stevencloser wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »It is unreal how much sugar we use today.
We? I think it's pretty clear that you can't generalize.
I didn't eat large amounts of sugar when getting fat. It wasn't something I grew up with or adopted. I did eat some added sugar, because sugar (combined with fat and other things) is often part of a tasty pie or cookie or ice cream or even rhubarb sauce and not evil. Never been insulin resistant, never had other diet-related health issues, lost the weight eating as many carbs as I wanted and never once drinking lots of oil or butter in some coffee (plus, coffee tastes best black).
Take the "we" as in "we as a society". Just because YOU personally don't doesn't make it less unreal
If you buy packaged goods look at the sugar added to random foods : ketchup is an obvious example, dressings, some savory snacks, coleslaw mentioned by @GaleHawkins
I don't eat a lot of sugar. I strongly don't have anything against sugar either. I don't even track it on MFP tbh.
You know, most of the sugar in ketchup comes from the tomatoes.
Tomatoes are nature's Twinkie.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I think there's a myth that people eat loads of calories from sugar "hidden" in foods they don't expect. It's similar to the idea that people gobbled down Snackwells thinking they were low cal and health-promoting (as opposed to just sad-sounding). It's also self-serving (and promoted by Katie Couric and Lustig, etc.), because of course it's nicer* to think that you were tricked by BigFood into becoming fat rather than you chose to eat lots of obviously high cal foods, even if all BigFood foods have labels, of course.
When it comes to something like ketchup or ranch dressing, it's silly, the calories from sugar are tiny (and even as a ketchup hater I don't get people claiming to be ignorant of the fact there's sugar in ketchup -- it's sweet!). It's more true if you look at how calories in things like sweetened cereal increased over the years, but again you'd have to be engaged in a serious self-delusion project to claim that the sugar in cereal is "hidden" even apart from the label.
So I personally agree with you. People with health issues of course may find that there's more sugar in things than they realized and be frustrated. I doubt people really eat huge amounts of calories from "hidden" sugars, though -- and the claim that half of sugar comes from soda, etc. (SO not hidden) seems to back that up.
*Nicer for some. I'd rather admit I overate than claim to be too stupid to read a label, personally.
@WinoGelato this answers your question too, at least from me:
IF I was buying packaged goods OR tracking sugar, I wouldn't worry about sugar content anyway, since MFP allows to track sugar. I don't even track sugar so obviously... I was making an oft made point without having a count of the sugar content in those foods
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Very reasonable guidelines.
Agreed. It translates to about 10tsp per day of added sugar which seems pretty darn doable.
Absolutely. If one truly IS moderating, it should be pretty doable. I have much less, but that's my preference.
What I found most objectionable about the article was that it suggested that it would be so difficult for most people. Even the article itself didn't support that conclusion -- basically, if you look at the stats about sodas it seems like many people who are above the recommended limit could go below it just by cutting out or way down on soda or energy drinks and given averages that probably others are likely to be below it already.
And that's without even focusing on sugary cereals or packaged sweets, which a lot of people could probably easily cut down on.
Sure a lot of people could do it easily. Probably just an many or more would have a very hard time giving these things up. Just reading all the 'sugar addiction' and 'how do I give up soda' threads on this site would suggest it's not easy for a lot of people.0 -
Its really SAD to see (with all the information available today just a few clicks away) that some people still try to convince themselves that sugar can be good for you. There is absolutely nothing good about sugar in any form, we can tolerate loads of sugar yes, glucose is after all "biological fuel" but we should not be eating anything at all with sugar on the ingredients list.
This is the food industry that has been cleverly programming society for years and has got us all hooked on the stuff, all they need to do is keep adding sugar to all their new products and keep us addicted so we can keep buying more of their crap products, happy to say I'm 5 years clean, Had a few relapses perhaps every now and then (cough cough Christmas cough cough) but I know I'm never gonna be a full on addict ever again. Good luck to all of you.
I Vote for Banning Sugar!
http://www.naturalnews.com/047495_sugar_saccharin_addiction.html
sugar addiction has never been proven in human trials.
yes, sugar can be a part of a healthy diet as long as one is hitting micro nutrient goals and is within their calorie allotment.
So I assume that you do not eat bread, vegetables, fruits, etc, because sugar is bad? Are you also calling for a ban on fruit and vegetables, because "sugar is bad"?
Spot on! I dont eat bread, pasta, don't drink milk, pretty much any form of sugar and yes I stay far away from sugary vegetables and fruits, you cant really pull sugar out of vegetables and you cant go without eating vegetables so I guess you got me there, I eat sugar in vegetables and some fruits.
Sugar addiction hasn't been proven in human trials because any study that threatens the food industry is shutdown before it can even make it to public eye, most people are so dam clueless how addicted they are, just look next time you go shopping how much sugar is in the trollies, on the shelves, it's everywhere.
when the body doesn't have enough sugar in the blood it has many ways of producing sugar from fats and even proteins, I'm very active and fit, concious of what goes into my body and how I exercise, I've never needed sugars even when running the 10K charity races I attend 3-4 times per year.
The real lie you have been programmed to believe is that sugar can be good for you. why dont you try go zero sugar for a couple weeks and see how you feel, when you try raise arguments promoting sugars trust me I know what you are going through, I was there once, its the addiction talking, kick it and you'll feel a million times better, you wont need to watch your weight and your body will look after itself.
Or just ignore my advice and convince yourself that sugar is ok, and that these food giants are looking out for your health and not just worried about profits and shareholders, convince yourself that you are doing great just the way you are, I suspect that most if not all people suffering from some form of metobolic disease thought the same thing before they were diagnosed, Nobody is going to care about your health over their profits or the economy. Take some responsibility and read books, (you can start with "Pure, White and deadly"), the information is all over the web, you want to be truly healthy and live a long disease free healthy life then there's nothing stopping you.
If you want to keep eating sugar becuase it tastes nice and makes you feel good then go ahead, but thats all you eating it for, but just know it comes at a hefty price in the long term.
Sorry for stepping on people toes here, I dont post on these forums I just saw this post and it pains me to see how addicted society is to this stuff, thought even if I help 1 person move to the path of kicking the habit it would be worth this post. good luck guys, wish you all a long and healthy life
You aren't really stepping on anyone's toes. Your argument is like if someone tries to convince the board that 2+2=5. Your argument is so far wrong that it is too laughable to step on anyone's toes.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
Not sure what you mean, but I would not assume a rule for one food applies to all. So I think, no?
There's fats in avocados, nuts etc. so no need to add oil to your steak. That's the same logic is what I'm saying.
Sorry I'm just not getting your point. What does this have to do with not adding sugar to fruit?0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
Not sure what you mean, but I would not assume a rule for one food applies to all. So I think, no?
There's fats in avocados, nuts etc. so no need to add oil to your steak. That's the same logic is what I'm saying.
Sorry I'm just getting your point. What does this have to do with not adding sugar to fruit?
Seriously? How do you not get what he is saying? Why is it okay for added fats, but not added sugars?
0 -
My BG has actually been determined by my doctor to be too high.ForecasterJason wrote: »
I get that, but statistical associations don't always hold true in all cases. Recent blood tests have revealed that I do have BG levels that are too high, and I feel confident that it's not because I'm eating too much saturated fat (I don't eat that much). But I do know that my diet has had generous amounts of carbs, and I think it's reasonable to assume that at times it's probably been too many for my body to handle at once.ForecasterJason wrote: »
His point was sugar spiking blood sugar, not protein. I know protein has been shown to raise insulin, but the real issue is high blood glucose leading to insulin resistance. And blood glucose won't be spiked as much from protein as from carbs.Sugar spikes blood sugar. Do that too often or too much, and insulin resistance results. Inflammation follows. When you are 100-110 lbs overweight for years like I was, IR is a big deal. Hitting 277 lbs and judged pre-diabetic by my doctor a year ago, suffering from joint pain and gum recession (inflammation), I made the decision to make the Big Change. Not only did I give up refined sugar, but also all grains (whole grains, especially wheat, spike blood sugar more than table sugar).
A year later, I have lost 50 lbs, have no joint or lower back pain, and gum recession has reversed. Increased energy, elevated mood. Most of my major improvements came in 2-3 weeks after eliminating all grains and grain products. Weight loss took longer. The program I followed is called "Wheat Belly."
Four months ago, I moved from WB to Nutritional Ketosis, or as I call it, WB+. I had plateaued my weight loss over several months. NK (not to be confused with Ketoacidosis, a dangerous condition in T1 diabetics) emphasizes very low carbs (<10-15 g), moderate protein (70-90 g), and higher fats (80% of calories +). It has broken my IR and I have been steadily losing since moving to NK. Hit my lowest weight in years yesterday. 50 lbs down, 60 to go.
MFP has been my best friend on WB and NK. The display of macros Carbs, Fats, Proteins makes computing the Ketogenic Ratio (how ketogenic any food or meal or day is) a snap. My only wish is that MFP add the KR calculator in its list of nutrients. It's a simple formula.
WB and NK has given me back my health at age 67. The USDA recommended "6-11 servings of whole grains" and "limited fats" is a recipe for obesity, diabetes, as well as providing a rich environment for cancers (love glucose) and dementia (oxidation in neurons). It is no wonder American obesity, diabetes, cancer, and dementia has grown exponentially since these food guidelines were first published in the 1970s.
I have no vested interested in WB or NK beyond being a grateful recipient of their pathway to health. You can read the stories of thousands (with pictures) at OfficialWheatBelly on Facebook. Or get the lowdown on NK from "Butter Bob" Briggs at website "ButterMakesYourPantsFallOff" or Jimmy Moore's excellent research summary in "Keto Clarity."
If you are having trouble losing weight . . . stalled at a certain point . . . simply lower carbs and raise healthy fats. Beyond that, check out these resources for a new way of looking at the American Food Industry.
protein spikes insulin too, so are you recommending avoiding that?
and to your last point, if you are in a caloric surplus and just lower carbs and increase fat and are still in said surplus, you will not lose any additional fat, because caloric surplus.
Except it is called insulin resistance, not "insulin not responding to glucose". Glucose alone doesn't cause insulin resistance, nor even just protein. Epidemiological data demonstrates that high levels of saturated fat are associated with it.
unless you have had a doctor diagnosis you as having a medical condition then you can't think that you have said condition, And "feels" don't count as a self diagnosis.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
Not sure what you mean, but I would not assume a rule for one food applies to all. So I think, no?
There's fats in avocados, nuts etc. so no need to add oil to your steak. That's the same logic is what I'm saying.
Sorry I'm just getting your point. What does this have to do with not adding sugar to fruit?
Seriously? How do you not get what he is saying?
How? Um, I'm dense, my mind works differently, how the heck do I know why I don't get it??0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
Not sure what you mean, but I would not assume a rule for one food applies to all. So I think, no?
There's fats in avocados, nuts etc. so no need to add oil to your steak. That's the same logic is what I'm saying.
Sorry I'm just getting your point. What does this have to do with not adding sugar to fruit?
The poster to whom he was responding said that the guidelines should have said not to consume any added sugar, since we already get sugar from fruit. So steven asked if the same applied to fat -- since we can get fat from foods in which it occurs along with other nutrients (like avocados or salmon and olives), should the guidelines have said "no added fat!" (including that vinaigrette or olive oil on my veg or butter in my pie crust)?
The point is that "no added" does not reasonably follow from "you can consume all you need from naturally-occurring." As a personal choice, sure, whatever, but the poster was talking about what the guidelines should be and what others should do.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
Not sure what you mean, but I would not assume a rule for one food applies to all. So I think, no?
There's fats in avocados, nuts etc. so no need to add oil to your steak. That's the same logic is what I'm saying.
Sorry I'm just getting your point. What does this have to do with not adding sugar to fruit?
The poster to whom he was responding said that the guidelines should have said not to consume any added sugar, since we already get sugar from fruit. So steven asked if the same applied to fat -- since we can get fat from foods in which it occurs along with other nutrients (like avocados or salmon), should the guidelines have said "no added fat!" (including that vinaigrette or olive oil on my veg or butter in my pie crust)?
Ah, actually he replied to my comment that we don't need to add sugar to fruit, not to the original comment, though I see now that I didn't specifically say fruit thinking it was implied from the previous post.
So, my bad, I guess.0 -
snowflake930 wrote: »NO, just NO.
You need sugar...but trying to cut out all sugar, is a bad idea, and not possible or even healthy.
What...? You don't need sugar at all. Sugar is unhealthy and addictive, and while some people are able to limit the amount of sugar they eat, our taste buds are wired to want more and more of it. I strongly agree with what you mentioned that we should eat everything in moderation, but I eat less than 7 grams of sugar a day, and I'm doing totally fine, if not better than before. The reason sugar in fruit is ok, and I say ok because not everyone can have/handle it it, for you is because of the amount of fiber. The fiber slows the rush of insulin production in our body, which is why most people don't have a sugar rush after eating fruit. Chocolate, candy, smoothies, juices, or items with added sugar (be it from fruit or no) lack the fiber, therefore our bodies produce insulin right away. Cutting out sugar is one of the best things I personally think you can do for your body.
0 -
snowflake930 wrote: »NO, just NO.
You need sugar...but trying to cut out all sugar, is a bad idea, and not possible or even healthy.
What...? You don't need sugar at all. Sugar is unhealthy and addictive, and while some people are able to limit the amount of sugar they eat, our taste buds are wired to want more and more of it. I strongly agree with what you mentioned that we should eat everything in moderation, but I eat less than 7 grams of sugar a day, and I'm doing totally fine, if not better than before. The reason sugar in fruit is ok, and I say ok because not everyone can have/handle it it, for you is because of the amount of fiber. The fiber slows the rush of insulin production in our body, which is why most people don't have a sugar rush after eating fruit. Chocolate, candy, smoothies, juices, or items with added sugar (be it from fruit or no) lack the fiber, therefore our bodies produce insulin right away. Cutting out sugar is one of the best things I personally think you can do for your body.
Vintage...
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 419 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions