We Can Blame Sugar All We Like – But We're Only Creating More Problems For Ourselves
Replies
-
The majority of people posting about having a hard time with sugar are NOT looking for affirmation that because of sugar they have to stay overweight. They are looking for people who have the same issue to share strategies that help. Why respond if you don't have the issue? Why respond to them if seeing the thread title sends you to an aggravated state?
Sugar is a strong ingredient. The taste overpowers the other ingredients. The foods taste good because of the sweet flavor. You can't really taste the other ingredients. I think that's why sugar gets blamed like it does.
I appreciate the calm debate in this thread. I wish that the debating would stay in threads like this instead of where people are asking for help. More posters get chased away than are helped when the thread gets overtaken by the people who don't believe food addiction exists.
While I don't think sugar is the devil, I do know that the foods I overeat have an abundance of sugar. If that ingredient isn't in the food, I have zero interest in overeating it. Thats the same for many people. Discussing is helpful. Being slammed in the forum for wanting to discuss is harmful. Prohibiting the discussion because you don't believe it exists does not help anyone. Just because you don't have the issue, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
0 -
My first semester in college, I took political science. My professor gave an example that I've never forgotten. She pulled out a graph with the incidence of fatal traffic accidents over the previous 20 years in Detroit, with a clear upward trend. Then she pulled out another graph showing the incidence of dog heartworm during the same period in Detroit. Laying them over one another, she gave us the high R-value for correlation of the two. "Clearly, if you believed correlation is causation, then heartworm in dogs causes fatal traffic accidents" she said.
Come on now. It's the fatal traffic accidents that cause heartworm in dogs. Everybody knows that!
0 -
Of course moderation is a problem that many, if not most overweight and obese individuals struggle with.
Yes, and people often seem to think that learning to eat everything in moderation is going to happen INSTANTLY. For me, it's been a fairly lengthy learning process.
It's not sugar. It's the behavior around it. That's my two cents.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Pollywog_la wrote: »What bad thing will happen if added/excess sugar is removed from the modern diet? Answer...nothing.
Nothing bad will happen if people stop eating sugary cereals, or candy. Still plenty of sugars in natural foods.
Comparing it with the fat-scare is unfair. Humans actually NEED fat.
Low fat never said no fat (there's naturally-occurring fat in whole foods too, like nuts, meat (including fatty fish), avocado, olives) -- you don't need to get fat from sweets or packaged foods or fast food, etc., or even lots of sat fat from dairy or fattier cuts of meat to live. In fact, we are still recommended to limit those things. So it's the same.
And of course we do need sugar to live -- it's just that it's so incredibly important our bodies can create it from other things. That there are people who worry about whether they should reduce or limit their consumption of fruits and even vegetables because "sugar" shows that we've gone overboard, as usual, since it's easier to blame a macro than learn to eat in a sensible way that focuses on nutrient dense foods. Well, not easier, but apparently sexier -- there's more money to be made promoting this line. Apparently we are now doing the reverse of the Snackwell's thing -- making "no sugar" products that have extra fat and sodium and calories. People want a magic bullet.
As for your question, I am in favor of people eating fewer foods with lots of sugar added. I don't eat sugary cereal or candy myself (well, I don't like either), and I eat the foods with added sugar that I like (such as ice cream) in moderation. But wanting those foods removed from the food supply seems extreme. Why should they be, when many enjoy them and the correct answer is not to eat stupidly.
No one said that but you.
On the other side, let's not pretend that added sugar is some kind of required or necessary nutrient. Added sugar is pretty much something that we eat for fun, not nutritional needs. It is completely expendable with zero negative effects.
This is what I was responding to: "What bad thing will happen if added/excess sugar is removed from the modern diet?" If she didn't mean "by law" then I misread, but since no one was arguing that people shouldn't choose to lower their sugar intake, so did she.
I never suggested that added sugar was necessary, so that definitely is something no one said but you. But making a pie or adding a little sugar to oatmeal or coffee or a rhubarb sauce or pizza crust or on and on isn't the big deal some would make it out to be either. It's about dosage and choosing a reasonable diet. That one doesn't cut out all added sugar based on a (false) belief that it's inherently bad doesn't mean that one eats stupid amounts of it. Doing the latter is a choice, not the fault of sugar.0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Pollywog_la wrote: »What bad thing will happen if added/excess sugar is removed from the modern diet? Answer...nothing.
Nothing bad will happen if people stop eating sugary cereals, or candy. Still plenty of sugars in natural foods.
Comparing it with the fat-scare is unfair. Humans actually NEED fat.
Low fat never said no fat (there's naturally-occurring fat in whole foods too, like nuts, meat (including fatty fish), avocado, olives) -- you don't need to get fat from sweets or packaged foods or fast food, etc., or even lots of sat fat from dairy or fattier cuts of meat to live. In fact, we are still recommended to limit those things. So it's the same.
And of course we do need sugar to live -- it's just that it's so incredibly important our bodies can create it from other things. That there are people who worry about whether they should reduce or limit their consumption of fruits and even vegetables because "sugar" shows that we've gone overboard, as usual, since it's easier to blame a macro than learn to eat in a sensible way that focuses on nutrient dense foods. Well, not easier, but apparently sexier -- there's more money to be made promoting this line. Apparently we are now doing the reverse of the Snackwell's thing -- making "no sugar" products that have extra fat and sodium and calories. People want a magic bullet.
As for your question, I am in favor of people eating fewer foods with lots of sugar added. I don't eat sugary cereal or candy myself (well, I don't like either), and I eat the foods with added sugar that I like (such as ice cream) in moderation. But wanting those foods removed from the food supply seems extreme. Why should they be, when many enjoy them and the correct answer is not to eat stupidly.
No one said that but you.
On the other side, let's not pretend that added sugar is some kind of required or necessary nutrient. Added sugar is pretty much something that we eat for fun, not nutritional needs. It is completely expendable with zero negative effects.
The same can be said for saturated fat, but you won't hear that from the "sugar is the debil, eat all the baconz" crew.
I love eating sugar and am not crazy over bacon. Fats are required, sugar is not. I think saturated fats are the better choice for my fat intake as I prefer my fats 'nature-made'.
Fats are required (in particular, the essential fatty acids), bacon is not. People on quite low fat and low sat fat diets are often very healthy (the med diet is moderate to higher fat, as is the US diet, but much lower in sat fat; the traditional Japanese diet is very low fat).
I don't like eating plain sugar (can't imagine anyone does), but of course I like some sweet foods quite a bit (homemade pie, ice cream, really good cannoli, high quality chocolate), but if I had to choose between my favorite savory foods and my favorite sweet ones, I'd go with the savory, no problem (but I'm glad I don't have to choose).0 -
0
-
FunkyTobias wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Pollywog_la wrote: »What bad thing will happen if added/excess sugar is removed from the modern diet? Answer...nothing.
Nothing bad will happen if people stop eating sugary cereals, or candy. Still plenty of sugars in natural foods.
Comparing it with the fat-scare is unfair. Humans actually NEED fat.
Low fat never said no fat (there's naturally-occurring fat in whole foods too, like nuts, meat (including fatty fish), avocado, olives) -- you don't need to get fat from sweets or packaged foods or fast food, etc., or even lots of sat fat from dairy or fattier cuts of meat to live. In fact, we are still recommended to limit those things. So it's the same.
And of course we do need sugar to live -- it's just that it's so incredibly important our bodies can create it from other things. That there are people who worry about whether they should reduce or limit their consumption of fruits and even vegetables because "sugar" shows that we've gone overboard, as usual, since it's easier to blame a macro than learn to eat in a sensible way that focuses on nutrient dense foods. Well, not easier, but apparently sexier -- there's more money to be made promoting this line. Apparently we are now doing the reverse of the Snackwell's thing -- making "no sugar" products that have extra fat and sodium and calories. People want a magic bullet.
As for your question, I am in favor of people eating fewer foods with lots of sugar added. I don't eat sugary cereal or candy myself (well, I don't like either), and I eat the foods with added sugar that I like (such as ice cream) in moderation. But wanting those foods removed from the food supply seems extreme. Why should they be, when many enjoy them and the correct answer is not to eat stupidly.
No one said that but you.
On the other side, let's not pretend that added sugar is some kind of required or necessary nutrient. Added sugar is pretty much something that we eat for fun, not nutritional needs. It is completely expendable with zero negative effects.
The same can be said for saturated fat, but you won't hear that from the "sugar is the debil, eat all the baconz" crew.
I love eating sugar and am not crazy over bacon. Fats are required, sugar is not. I think saturated fats are the better choice for my fat intake as I prefer my fats 'nature-made'.
and there is absolutely zero reason to eat 50% more than the recommended fat minimum but the sugar/carb is evil crew seems to think that is totally legit even though it is completely unnecessary.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »Assuming that is accurate, very minimal added sugar. When I lived in Okinawa, I don't recall ever seeing big bags of sugar except in the "Westernized" stores. It was sold more in ounces, not pounds.
No question, although I continue to think the issues with the added sugar in the SAD can't be separated out from the kinds of products that contain them -- high cal, often high fat (specifically sat or trans fat), eaten in the context of a diet that typically includes too many calories and not enough activity. It seems true that there are negative health effects associated with the shift all over the world to a so-called "western" diet, but those changes don't merely include an increase in added sugar, but a whole host of changes. But personally, yes, I choose to limit added sugar and these kinds of foods (without eliminating them -- in fact, I try to include them as I think has been common for many, many years and not in the excesses that have taken place more recently -- I don't think it must be all or nothing).
The point that rabbit was responding to, though, wasn't about added sugar, but a claim that "carbs" are inherently bad and should be nearly eliminated if one wants to be healthy. The chart responds nicely to that claim, and supports the view (that I agree with) that macro mix likely is not that important, except if you have a specific existing health issue or it makes a different to how easy it is for an individual to eat well (which people have to determine for themselves).
My frustration in some of these conversations is the argument that if excess added sugar is bad for us (which I suspect it may be, even apart from calories), that means that someone who wants to be healthy should avoid all sugar (or all added sugar) and having some pie on Thanksgiving or a bit of chocolate daily is taking a huge risk or simply not as virtuous or health conscious as those who choose otherwise. The negative health effects we see now aren't associated with people occasionally eating some sweets (as my grandparents certainly did). They are associated with a huge increase in the consumption of calories, added sugar, sweetened drinks specifically, and various other dietary changes.I'll add myself to the list of those that eat fattier foods when I overeat, but at times combined with sugar (cookies, cheesecake, etc). Assuming you are correct on @lemurcat12 's position, that would give us an N=3.
Savory vs. sweet, yes, but calories from both fat and carbs, but not particularly sugar (and never carbs on their own), would be my issue. Biggest culprit back in the day was likely Indian food (including "bad day, I'm tired, I'll order Indian!"). I still eat it, but not nearly as often, and with more moderation. ;-)0 -
Btw, I've eaten pure sugar before, and I bet y'all have, too. Powdered sugar mixed in water makes that icing you get on Arby's turnovers and similar things. I have to admit to scraping it off the paper after eating the turnover, yep! Or licking the pot of it that comes when making cinnamon buns. I know I'm not the only one
0 -
cafeaulait7 wrote: »Btw, I've eaten pure sugar before, and I bet y'all have, too. Powdered sugar mixed in water makes that icing you get on Arby's turnovers and similar things. I have to admit to scraping it off the paper after eating the turnover, yep! Or licking the pot of it that comes when making cinnamon buns. I know I'm not the only one
No, you are definitely not the only one. I used to do that too
0 -
No, not appealing to me. On a cinnamon bun, sure!0
-
Bloomberg View: In Mexico, a Soda Tax Success Story. This week's Bloomberg has a short write-up on the tax on soda in Mexico. Paraphrasing the article, sugary drinks are the primary driver of obesity, purchases of sugary drinks dropped 12%, obesity is becoming a global epidemic the greatest group helped by the tax are the poor which has also helps lower their need for medical care which is costly. I can see this becoming a more popular idea in the coming years. Last bullet point: Sugary drinks should be eliminated from the federal food stamps program. Food for thought folks.0
-
I go back and forth with regulating food to help people to have a healthy BMI. In my own case, I don't think regulations would have made a difference. I can only blame myself. Maybe not specifically but I knew I was eating a ton calories over what I burned. Just didn't realize just how little I burned.
I wonder if companies should be required to list calories in readable text when advertising food, especially restaurants. Would it help if Pizza Hut had to list the calories?
I don't remember learning about calories in school. Maybe it was covered but I only remember learning about the 5 food groups. Education in k-12 about calories and macros would be a great start. I know I didn't see anything about it come home from our school district.
I don't think people on food stamps should be prohibited from buying soda.0 -
I'm 20 pounds from a healthy BMI. Not sure I'd have a criteria or a marker. And, sin taxes like alcohol, cigs, and eventually sugar are fairly ironic when you think about it. Sugar would be one of epic irony. Cut taxes for farmers to grow a taxable crop. Personally, I think starting down the road of taxing foods is problematic. Then again, bridges collapsing are a problem too.susan100df wrote: »I go back and forth with regulating food to help people to have a healthy BMI. I wonder if companies should be required to l
0 -
susan100df wrote: »I go back and forth with regulating food to help people to have a healthy BMI. In my own case, I don't think regulations would have made a difference. I can only blame myself. Maybe not specifically but I knew I was eating a ton calories over what I burned. Just didn't realize just how little I burned.
I wonder if companies should be required to list calories in readable text when advertising food, especially restaurants. Would it help if Pizza Hut had to list the calories?
I don't remember learning about calories in school. Maybe it was covered but I only remember learning about the 5 food groups. Education in k-12 about calories and macros would be a great start. I know I didn't see anything about it come home from our school district.
I don't think people on food stamps should be prohibited from buying soda.
Don't quote me on this, but I'm pretty sure chain restaurants are being required either now or soon to post calorie information. They already have to in California, with more than 20 restaurants (I think that's the number).
I'm curious to see if the soda tax actually helps Mexico's obesity problem, or if people will get the calories from somewhere else and remain overweight.0 -
susan100df wrote: »I go back and forth with regulating food to help people to have a healthy BMI. In my own case, I don't think regulations would have made a difference. I can only blame myself. Maybe not specifically but I knew I was eating a ton calories over what I burned. Just didn't realize just how little I burned.
I wonder if companies should be required to list calories in readable text when advertising food, especially restaurants. Would it help if Pizza Hut had to list the calories?
I don't remember learning about calories in school. Maybe it was covered but I only remember learning about the 5 food groups. Education in k-12 about calories and macros would be a great start. I know I didn't see anything about it come home from our school district.
I don't think people on food stamps should be prohibited from buying soda.
Don't quote me on this, but I'm pretty sure chain restaurants are being required either now or soon to post calorie information. They already have to in California, with more than 20 restaurants (I think that's the number).
I'm curious to see if the soda tax actually helps Mexico's obesity problem, or if people will get the calories from somewhere else and remain overweight.
I am looking forward to what they find in terms of overall numbers. Kids learn about nutrition in school. They then read and believe the magazines and 'emotion' of good versus bad foods.0 -
susan100df wrote: »While I don't think sugar is the devil, I do know that the foods I overeat have an abundance of sugar. If that ingredient isn't in the food, I have zero interest in overeating it. Thats the same for many people. Discussing is helpful. Being slammed in the forum for wanting to discuss is harmful. Prohibiting the discussion because you don't believe it exists does not help anyone. Just because you don't have the issue, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I could get plenty obese without ever touching sugary treats. Pizza, Mexican food, Chinese food, BBQ, burgers and french fries, etc. I'd much sooner eat 3,000 calories of Mexican food than I would 3,000 calories of cake, pie, donuts or candy bars. Sweets are actually pretty easy for me to control, they're rarely the thing I have interest in overeating.0 -
susan100df wrote: »While I don't think sugar is the devil, I do know that the foods I overeat have an abundance of sugar. If that ingredient isn't in the food, I have zero interest in overeating it. Thats the same for many people. Discussing is helpful. Being slammed in the forum for wanting to discuss is harmful. Prohibiting the discussion because you don't believe it exists does not help anyone. Just because you don't have the issue, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I could get plenty obese without ever touching sugary treats. Pizza, Mexican food, Chinese food, BBQ, burgers and french fries, etc. I'd much sooner eat 3,000 calories of Mexican food than I would 3,000 calories of cake, pie, donuts or candy bars. Sweets are actually pretty easy for me to control, they're rarely the thing I have interest in overeating.
Hmmmmm pizza0 -
_Terrapin_ wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Pollywog_la wrote: »What bad thing will happen if added/excess sugar is removed from the modern diet? Answer...nothing.
Nothing bad will happen if people stop eating sugary cereals, or candy. Still plenty of sugars in natural foods.
Comparing it with the fat-scare is unfair. Humans actually NEED fat.
Low fat never said no fat (there's naturally-occurring fat in whole foods too, like nuts, meat (including fatty fish), avocado, olives) -- you don't need to get fat from sweets or packaged foods or fast food, etc., or even lots of sat fat from dairy or fattier cuts of meat to live. In fact, we are still recommended to limit those things. So it's the same.
And of course we do need sugar to live -- it's just that it's so incredibly important our bodies can create it from other things. That there are people who worry about whether they should reduce or limit their consumption of fruits and even vegetables because "sugar" shows that we've gone overboard, as usual, since it's easier to blame a macro than learn to eat in a sensible way that focuses on nutrient dense foods. Well, not easier, but apparently sexier -- there's more money to be made promoting this line. Apparently we are now doing the reverse of the Snackwell's thing -- making "no sugar" products that have extra fat and sodium and calories. People want a magic bullet.
As for your question, I am in favor of people eating fewer foods with lots of sugar added. I don't eat sugary cereal or candy myself (well, I don't like either), and I eat the foods with added sugar that I like (such as ice cream) in moderation. But wanting those foods removed from the food supply seems extreme. Why should they be, when many enjoy them and the correct answer is not to eat stupidly.
No one said that but you.
On the other side, let's not pretend that added sugar is some kind of required or necessary nutrient. Added sugar is pretty much something that we eat for fun, not nutritional needs. It is completely expendable with zero negative effects.
I eat alligator for fun....and the wooden stick. What food do you eat and think 'I need the nutrient specific to this food item'? I get the idea it isn't necessary but I enjoy it and need energy. If we outlawed soda for example, could you imagine the bottling companies believing people would buy bottled water? Oh wait.
Most of what I chose to eat is chosen for its contribution to micronutrients that I have a hard time getting enough of. I'm not perfect, but am trying to get nutrients from food itself. It takes work to find affordable, nutritious, tasty food that fulfills daily needs. I don't understand promoting added sugar as food - it promotes overeating and/or 'under-nutritioning'.
0 -
susan100df wrote: »I go back and forth with regulating food to help people to have a healthy BMI. In my own case, I don't think regulations would have made a difference. I can only blame myself. Maybe not specifically but I knew I was eating a ton calories over what I burned. Just didn't realize just how little I burned.
I wonder if companies should be required to list calories in readable text when advertising food, especially restaurants. Would it help if Pizza Hut had to list the calories?
I don't remember learning about calories in school. Maybe it was covered but I only remember learning about the 5 food groups. Education in k-12 about calories and macros would be a great start. I know I didn't see anything about it come home from our school district.
I don't think people on food stamps should be prohibited from buying soda.
Don't quote me on this, but I'm pretty sure chain restaurants are being required either now or soon to post calorie information. They already have to in California, with more than 20 restaurants (I think that's the number).
I'm curious to see if the soda tax actually helps Mexico's obesity problem, or if people will get the calories from somewhere else and remain overweight.
You are right.
http://www.fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/LabelingNutrition/ucm248732.htmAs required by statute, FDA’s final rule for nutrition labeling in chain restaurants and similar retail food establishments will provide consumers with clear and consistent nutrition information in a direct and accessible manner for the foods they eat and buy for their families. Posting calories on menus and menu boards and providing other nutrient information in writing in chain restaurants and similar retail food establishments will fill a critical information gap and help consumers make informed and healthful dietary choices.
Covered establishments will list calorie information for standard menu items on menus and menu boards and a succinct statement about suggested daily caloric intake. Other nutrient information—total calories, calories from fat, total fat, saturated fat, trans fat, cholesterol, sodium, total carbohydrates, fiber, sugars, and protein—will have to be made available in writing on request.
I think this is good. Not everyone belongs to MFP and is looking their restaurant meals up. I know I've had some restaurant meals thinking they were reasonable only to find out after the fact that I just ate a calorie bomb.
I think about taking it a step further and require calories listed on foods advertised in print and on TV. Knowing the calorie amount definitely encourages me either to skip or to save something for when I have available calories. I'm only aware because I'm counting.
If people can afford it, I think they will buy their soda just like they always did. Cigarettes are 10 bucks a pack here. While most smokers I know have quit, somebody is paying the $10 or the stores wouldn't be selling them.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K 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
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 907 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions