Afraid of natural sugars
Replies
-
rankinsect wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »But wait a minute, all the "experts" on MFP will tell you over and over again - sugar is sugar, doesn't matter where it comes from. Obviously, they know more than WHO. And also the USDA, which has just mandated the "added sugar" category on nutrition labels.
If you read the actual WHO report, the reasons they are recommending reduction in free sugars is:
1. To reduce tooth decay,
2. To reduce the overall calories consumed and thus reduce body weight.
If you are controlling your calories directly, #2 is of no benefit to you since you're eating the same amount anyway. As to #1, sugar reduction can give a benefit, but dental cavities are much more easily prevented by better oral hygiene. Brushing your teeth and flossing before plaque has a chance to form is the best way to prevent cavities.
And let's also not forget the WHO fully recognizes the energy balance must be addressed.
"Energy intake (calories) should be in balance with energy expenditure. Evidence indicates that total fat should not exceed 30% of total energy intake to avoid unhealthy weight gain (1, 2, 3), with a shift in fat consumption away from saturated fats to unsaturated fats (3), and towards the elimination of industrial trans fats (4)."2 -
LolBroScience wrote: »Not wrong per say, but there really isn't any need to avoid them unless you have some sort of underlying medical condition that would forbid you from ingesting it.
Focus on the bigger picture and stay under on your calories whilst intaking a wide variety of nutrient dense foods.
No reason to avoid things you like unless you have control issues or allergy/health related issues.
^This.. great advice right here1 -
My nutrient goals are low sodium and low sugar. I try to not go over half my MFP allotment. My diet consists mostly of lean protein, lots of veggies, an apple here and and there, a glass of wine. I eat diabetic bread cause it has no sugar. I have lost almost 10 lbs since my first month here on MFP. My tastebuds have changed. So if I have some juice like I did last Sunday, it absolutely tastes to sweet. Same with sodium. I'm doing this for lower blood pressure, and less inflammation in my body. It seems to be working for me.0
-
Thanks everyone, I eat a lot of salad which also has natural sugars and that plus a glass of milk or putting a banana in a smoothie seems to bring up my sugar. Once I see that negative red number I feel like I screwed up.
+1 to the idea of changing your MFP diary settings to stop tracking sugar, and track something more interesting to you, if you don't have a medical reason to limit sugars.
While losing weight, I was going over my default MFP sugar goal every single day, when the only added sugar I was eating was a tiny bit of fruit juice concentrate (not even the first item on the ingredient list) in a 30-calorie tablespoon of all-fruit spread daily. All of the rest of the sugar was inherent in no-sugar-added milk products, and 2-3 daily servings of whole fruit. In that context, the default sugar goal is ridiculous.
So, I stopped tracking sugar, and started tracking fiber instead. No more scary red numbers. Lost 63 pounds, now at a healthy weight for the first time in decades.
Don't worry if you go over any particular macro goal, though, as long as you have good nutritional balance (and no medical issues that require compliance), and you'll lose weight as long as you maintain a calorie deficit, no matter what you eat to get there.1 -
TL;DR the endless sugar arguments.
I eat both natural and refined sugars pretty much daily. I've lost 85 lbs eating this way, and pretty sure I'm no special snowflake. I eat a banana almost everyday, too..I love those things!2 -
rankinsect wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »But wait a minute, all the "experts" on MFP will tell you over and over again - sugar is sugar, doesn't matter where it comes from. Obviously, they know more than WHO. And also the USDA, which has just mandated the "added sugar" category on nutrition labels.
If you read the actual WHO report, the reasons they are recommending reduction in free sugars is:
1. To reduce tooth decay,
2. To reduce the overall calories consumed and thus reduce body weight.
If you are controlling your calories directly, #2 is of no benefit to you since you're eating the same amount anyway. As to #1, sugar reduction can give a benefit, but dental cavities are much more easily prevented by better oral hygiene. Brushing your teeth and flossing before plaque has a chance to form is the best way to prevent cavities.
And let's also not forget the WHO fully recognizes the energy balance must be addressed.
"Energy intake (calories) should be in balance with energy expenditure. Evidence indicates that total fat should not exceed 30% of total energy intake to avoid unhealthy weight gain (1, 2, 3), with a shift in fat consumption away from saturated fats to unsaturated fats (3), and towards the elimination of industrial trans fats (4)."
Hold on. You mean the WHO says you should limit your fat intake too? You don't say. Interesting. Should we also believe them about that over the "experts" on MFP?
3 -
From the USDA 2015 guidelines. Argue with them, not me.
According to the 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines, we should limit our total daily consumption of added sugars to less than 10% of calories per day. This recommendation is to help achieve a healthy eating style. After eating foods from all food groups to meet nutrient needs, there is limited room for calories from added sugars. When added sugars in foods and beverages exceed 10% of calories, it may be difficult to achieve a healthy eating style that meets personal calorie limits.
A large body of science shows that eating styles with less added sugars are associated with reduced risk of cardiovascular disease in adults, and some evidence indicates that these styles are also associated with reduced risk of obesity, type 2 diabetes, and some types of cancer in adults.0 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »From the USDA 2015 guidelines. Argue with them, not me.
According to the 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines, we should limit our total daily consumption of added sugars to less than 10% of calories per day. This recommendation is to help achieve a healthy eating style. After eating foods from all food groups to meet nutrient needs, there is limited room for calories from added sugars. When added sugars in foods and beverages exceed 10% of calories, it may be difficult to achieve a healthy eating style that meets personal calorie limits.
A large body of science shows that eating styles with less added sugars are associated with reduced risk of cardiovascular disease in adults, and some evidence indicates that these styles are also associated with reduced risk of obesity, type 2 diabetes, and some types of cancer in adults.
Why would I argue with that...that seems accurate to me. What I disagree with is your claim earlier that somehow added sugar is different than naturally present sugar. That is a claim that YOU made, not that the WHO made...not that the USDA made and its not true. Its just that if you eat a lot of sugar you are getting a lot of empty calories that don't provide the nutrition you need and don't provide the satiation necessary to stay full. That doesn't mean that added sugar is any different than sugar that is present in a bananna...they are both sugar. Its just that one comes with dietary fiber and potassium and one doesn't. The sugar that is present in a bananna is the same fructose that is present in that added sugar, because fructose is sourced from plants. Sucrose, table sugar, also sourced from plants and is just the disaccharide of glucose and fructose. Its the same sugar.
If your only point is "if you eat a lot of sugar its going to be hard to stay under your calorie limit while still getting enough nutrition" then duh man, no one is going to disagree with that...but you are taking it further to a place that is just bizarre when you claim that somehow refined sugars are different from "natural" sugars. That is just wrong and so I'm going to point out that that is wrong.
Is guzzling down a bunch of high fructose corn syrup drinking liters of soda going to make you fat and is that going to increase your risk of obesity, type 2 diabetes, cancer and cardiovascular disease? Yeah...again, duh. People know that, that isn't some sort of new information that is surprising. You are taking in a lot of excess calories, going way over your maintenance level and getting fatter. But you know what, if you somehow decided to chow down 50 bananas a day you'd have the same problem, the only difference is its a lot easier to drink liters of soda than it is to eat 50 bananas. Again...surprising absolutely no one.9 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »From the USDA 2015 guidelines. Argue with them, not me.
According to the 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines, we should limit our total daily consumption of added sugars to less than 10% of calories per day. This recommendation is to help achieve a healthy eating style. After eating foods from all food groups to meet nutrient needs, there is limited room for calories from added sugars. When added sugars in foods and beverages exceed 10% of calories, it may be difficult to achieve a healthy eating style that meets personal calorie limits.
A large body of science shows that eating styles with less added sugars are associated with reduced risk of cardiovascular disease in adults, and some evidence indicates that these styles are also associated with reduced risk of obesity, type 2 diabetes, and some types of cancer in adults.
If your only point is "if you eat a lot of sugar its going to be hard to stay under your calorie limit while still getting enough nutrition" then duh man, no one is going to disagree with that...but you are taking it further to a place that is just bizarre when you claim that somehow refined sugars are different from "natural" sugars. That is just wrong and so I'm going to point out that that is wrong.
0 -
My interpretation of the WHO guideline is that added sugars are added to excess, whereas if one sticks to more natural sugar sources intake is moderated somewhat - for example, in fruit the sugars are paired with fibre which is satiating, and in fuller fat dairy, paired with fat & protein (or just protein in low or fat free dairy), which is also satiating.
Personally, I restrict carbs (I have a 50% chance of developing type 2 diabetes in the next 3 years based purely on risk factors, even though I've never failed a glucose challenge test unless that's why my doctor wants to see me next week). But I still make room in my diet for dairy and a small amount of fruit (and a large amount of fibrous veggies, but those tend to be low in sugar anyway), because the nutrient profile is so good. My handful of strawberries in my smoothie maxes out my vitamin C for the day all by itself!0 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »From the USDA 2015 guidelines. Argue with them, not me.
According to the 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines, we should limit our total daily consumption of added sugars to less than 10% of calories per day. This recommendation is to help achieve a healthy eating style. After eating foods from all food groups to meet nutrient needs, there is limited room for calories from added sugars. When added sugars in foods and beverages exceed 10% of calories, it may be difficult to achieve a healthy eating style that meets personal calorie limits.
A large body of science shows that eating styles with less added sugars are associated with reduced risk of cardiovascular disease in adults, and some evidence indicates that these styles are also associated with reduced risk of obesity, type 2 diabetes, and some types of cancer in adults.
Why would I argue with that...that seems accurate to me. What I disagree with is your claim earlier that somehow added sugar is different than naturally present sugar. That is a claim that YOU made, not that the WHO made...not that the USDA made and its not true. Its just that if you eat a lot of sugar you are getting a lot of empty calories that don't provide the nutrition you need and don't provide the satiation necessary to stay full. That doesn't mean that added sugar is any different than sugar that is present in a bananna...they are both sugar. Its just that one comes with dietary fiber and potassium and one doesn't. The sugar that is present in a bananna is the same fructose that is present in that added sugar, because fructose is sourced from plants. Sucrose, table sugar, also sourced from plants and is just the disaccharide of glucose and fructose. Its the same sugar.
Yeah, I get it. Sugar is sugar.
Just like water is water (H20). But there is great pure and delicious tasting water, and crappy foggy lousy tasting water that's highly purified to make it drinkable. Which water would you prefer?
So nobody cares that sugar is sugar. What you should care about is the blueberry is the equivalent to the great tasting water and the donut is equivalent to the lousy tasting water.
Repeating the sugar is sugar mantra to people who are not educated in nutrition is a big mistake. It should never be even stated, even though it is true. Actually, break it down into glucose, sucrose and fructose.
0 -
Yeah, I get it. Sugar is sugar.
Just like water is water (H20). But there is great pure and delicious tasting water, and crappy foggy lousy tasting water that's highly purified to make it drinkable. Which water would you prefer?
This makes absolutely no sense. Purified water is clear by definition.
Just water tastes a little "flat". That's why we have aerators on our kitchen taps and why Perrier makes so much money on their doctored waters. It's actually the dissolved minerals and a little trapped carbon dioxide that really gives water that "zip".
3 -
The naturally clear spring water in Florida for instance, benefits from layers and layers of limestone rock that acts like a giant filter.
http://www.floridasprings.org/learn/journey/
We imitate this process through our own filtration systems or perhaps distillation. The result is the same; cloudy to clear.1 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »From the USDA 2015 guidelines. Argue with them, not me.
According to the 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines, we should limit our total daily consumption of added sugars to less than 10% of calories per day. This recommendation is to help achieve a healthy eating style. After eating foods from all food groups to meet nutrient needs, there is limited room for calories from added sugars. When added sugars in foods and beverages exceed 10% of calories, it may be difficult to achieve a healthy eating style that meets personal calorie limits.
A large body of science shows that eating styles with less added sugars are associated with reduced risk of cardiovascular disease in adults, and some evidence indicates that these styles are also associated with reduced risk of obesity, type 2 diabetes, and some types of cancer in adults.
Why would I argue with that...that seems accurate to me. What I disagree with is your claim earlier that somehow added sugar is different than naturally present sugar. That is a claim that YOU made, not that the WHO made...not that the USDA made and its not true. Its just that if you eat a lot of sugar you are getting a lot of empty calories that don't provide the nutrition you need and don't provide the satiation necessary to stay full. That doesn't mean that added sugar is any different than sugar that is present in a bananna...they are both sugar. Its just that one comes with dietary fiber and potassium and one doesn't. The sugar that is present in a bananna is the same fructose that is present in that added sugar, because fructose is sourced from plants. Sucrose, table sugar, also sourced from plants and is just the disaccharide of glucose and fructose. Its the same sugar.
Yeah, I get it. Sugar is sugar.
Just like water is water (H20). But there is great pure and delicious tasting water, and crappy foggy lousy tasting water that's highly purified to make it drinkable. Which water would you prefer?
So nobody cares that sugar is sugar. What you should care about is the blueberry is the equivalent to the great tasting water and the donut is equivalent to the lousy tasting water.
Repeating the sugar is sugar mantra to people who are not educated in nutrition is a big mistake. It should never be even stated, even though it is true. Actually, break it down into glucose, sucrose and fructose.
Why do you feel comparing a sugar from a blueberry, to a donut which has a lot of fat, salt and sugar as a solid comparison? The sugar that is used in donuts is extracted chemically equivalent. The nutrition, as stated by every person on this forum in response to your consistent argument, of a blueberry and a donut are not comparable. The comparison of the two is ridiculous in itself and used by people to try and make an absurd point. Extreme comparisons are not a valid argument. In the end, a person can have a diet that incorporates both foods. Personally, I tend to eat more fruits daily but on occasion, I do have a muffin.7 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »From the USDA 2015 guidelines. Argue with them, not me.
According to the 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines, we should limit our total daily consumption of added sugars to less than 10% of calories per day. This recommendation is to help achieve a healthy eating style. After eating foods from all food groups to meet nutrient needs, there is limited room for calories from added sugars. When added sugars in foods and beverages exceed 10% of calories, it may be difficult to achieve a healthy eating style that meets personal calorie limits.
A large body of science shows that eating styles with less added sugars are associated with reduced risk of cardiovascular disease in adults, and some evidence indicates that these styles are also associated with reduced risk of obesity, type 2 diabetes, and some types of cancer in adults.
Why would I argue with that...that seems accurate to me. What I disagree with is your claim earlier that somehow added sugar is different than naturally present sugar. That is a claim that YOU made, not that the WHO made...not that the USDA made and its not true. Its just that if you eat a lot of sugar you are getting a lot of empty calories that don't provide the nutrition you need and don't provide the satiation necessary to stay full. That doesn't mean that added sugar is any different than sugar that is present in a bananna...they are both sugar. Its just that one comes with dietary fiber and potassium and one doesn't. The sugar that is present in a bananna is the same fructose that is present in that added sugar, because fructose is sourced from plants. Sucrose, table sugar, also sourced from plants and is just the disaccharide of glucose and fructose. Its the same sugar.
Yeah, I get it. Sugar is sugar.
Just like water is water (H20). But there is great pure and delicious tasting water, and crappy foggy lousy tasting water that's highly purified to make it drinkable. Which water would you prefer?
So nobody cares that sugar is sugar. What you should care about is the blueberry is the equivalent to the great tasting water and the donut is equivalent to the lousy tasting water.
Repeating the sugar is sugar mantra to people who are not educated in nutrition is a big mistake. It should never be even stated, even though it is true. Actually, break it down into glucose, sucrose and fructose.
This seems to be the problem. You assume people are too dumb to understand and will take a fact (sugar is sugar) as a justification to eat a not particularly satisfying or nutritious diet. If they would do that, they'd do it anyway -- IMO, knowing the accurate facts is not a bad thing.
That sugar is sugar doesn't make the WHO wrong (I agree with the WHO advice) or mean (rather obviously) that an apple is the same as a chocolate chip cookie, just because the two have the same amount of sugar. The apple with have fewer calories and more fiber, and some nutrients the cookie lacks (and the cookie will have a few things the apple lacks -- including a bunch of fat, largely from butter in the case of the cookies I sometimes make, and I know you are all about fat from other threads), but is rather obviously (again) a higher cal "treat" or "sometimes, if it fits in your calories" food, and not something where a lot of them are going to fit easily in the usual day.5 -
Am I the only one who reads gonetothedogs' posts in Eric Cartman's voice?5
-
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »In 2018 the USDA will require food companies to provide the amount of added sugar on the label. I wonder why?
Because added, "hidden" sugar is a big contributor to excess calories and sub-optimal nutrition -- which is a contributor to obesity -- which leads to numerous chronic diseases and puts a strain on the healthcare system. Not, as you seem to suggest, that there's something intrinsic about added sugar that makes it "bad." None of the authorities you're quoting are saying that either.
Why this is so divisive?
4 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »From the USDA 2015 guidelines. Argue with them, not me.
According to the 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines, we should limit our total daily consumption of added sugars to less than 10% of calories per day. This recommendation is to help achieve a healthy eating style. After eating foods from all food groups to meet nutrient needs, there is limited room for calories from added sugars. When added sugars in foods and beverages exceed 10% of calories, it may be difficult to achieve a healthy eating style that meets personal calorie limits.
A large body of science shows that eating styles with less added sugars are associated with reduced risk of cardiovascular disease in adults, and some evidence indicates that these styles are also associated with reduced risk of obesity, type 2 diabetes, and some types of cancer in adults.
Why would I argue with that...that seems accurate to me. What I disagree with is your claim earlier that somehow added sugar is different than naturally present sugar. That is a claim that YOU made, not that the WHO made...not that the USDA made and its not true. Its just that if you eat a lot of sugar you are getting a lot of empty calories that don't provide the nutrition you need and don't provide the satiation necessary to stay full. That doesn't mean that added sugar is any different than sugar that is present in a bananna...they are both sugar. Its just that one comes with dietary fiber and potassium and one doesn't. The sugar that is present in a bananna is the same fructose that is present in that added sugar, because fructose is sourced from plants. Sucrose, table sugar, also sourced from plants and is just the disaccharide of glucose and fructose. Its the same sugar.
Yeah, I get it. Sugar is sugar.
Just like water is water (H20). But there is great pure and delicious tasting water, and crappy foggy lousy tasting water that's highly purified to make it drinkable. Which water would you prefer?
So nobody cares that sugar is sugar. What you should care about is the blueberry is the equivalent to the great tasting water and the donut is equivalent to the lousy tasting water.
Repeating the sugar is sugar mantra to people who are not educated in nutrition is a big mistake. It should never be even stated, even though it is true. Actually, break it down into glucose, sucrose and fructose.
Why do you feel comparing a sugar from a blueberry, to a donut which has a lot of fat, salt and sugar as a solid comparison? The sugar that is used in donuts is extracted chemically equivalent. The nutrition, as stated by every person on this forum in response to your consistent argument, of a blueberry and a donut are not comparable. The comparison of the two is ridiculous in itself and used by people to try and make an absurd point. Extreme comparisons are not a valid argument. In the end, a person can have a diet that incorporates both foods. Personally, I tend to eat more fruits daily but on occasion, I do have a muffin.
Switch donut to a can of Coke (no fat, no salt). Eat the number of blueberries that have the same amount of sugar as the Coke. Now tell me what is the point of saying the sugar in Coke is the same as the sugar in the blueberries. It is chemically correct. But one is garbage, and one is very healthy. So what's the point.
0 -
Raptor2763 wrote: »Natural sugars aren't any big deal - it's the added sugar, ESPECIALLY the REFINED sugar one need to avoid. That's where reading labels comes in really handy
I think the official hierarchy of irrational carbophobia is actually a step gradient, not a binary:
Plants -> very healthy, not scary
Plant juice -> fairly healthy, somewhat scary
Mechanically separated plant juice -> potential health threat, moderately scary
Dehydrated mechanically separated plant juice -> terrifying poison
@richln
That there is one awesome post. Kudos. 1 -
Raptor2763 wrote: »Natural sugars aren't any big deal - it's the added sugar, ESPECIALLY the REFINED sugar one need to avoid. That's where reading labels comes in really handy
No need to avoid anything if you're not diabetic. Limit, sure. Avoid? Unnecessary.
However, 1/3 of the American Population may well be pre-diabetic, as per CDC statistics. In that case it makes perfect sense to lessen carbohydrate load. If only to stop pre-diabetes and/or insulin resistance progressing to T2 Diabetes. Natural or refined sugar: no difference in how the body processes those.0 -
rankinsect wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »But wait a minute, all the "experts" on MFP will tell you over and over again - sugar is sugar, doesn't matter where it comes from. Obviously, they know more than WHO. And also the USDA, which has just mandated the "added sugar" category on nutrition labels.
If you read the actual WHO report, the reasons they are recommending reduction in free sugars is:
1. To reduce tooth decay,
2. To reduce the overall calories consumed and thus reduce body weight.
If you are controlling your calories directly, #2 is of no benefit to you since you're eating the same amount anyway. As to #1, sugar reduction can give a benefit, but dental cavities are much more easily prevented by better oral hygiene. Brushing your teeth and flossing before plaque has a chance to form is the best way to prevent cavities.
We now know that the "sugar isn't unhealthy beyond tooth decay and it's empty calories only" was heavily influenced *cough* bought by the sugar industry.1 -
Raptor2763 wrote: »Natural sugars aren't any big deal - it's the added sugar, ESPECIALLY the REFINED sugar one need to avoid. That's where reading labels comes in really handy
I think the official hierarchy of irrational carbophobia is actually a step gradient, not a binary:
Plants -> very healthy, not scary
Plant juice -> fairly healthy, somewhat scary
Mechanically separated plant juice -> potential health threat, moderately scary
Dehydrated mechanically separated plant juice -> terrifying poison
@richln That there is one awesome post. Kudos.
agree, it was just shared on a FB page.2 -
Raptor2763 wrote: »Natural sugars aren't any big deal - it's the added sugar, ESPECIALLY the REFINED sugar one need to avoid. That's where reading labels comes in really handy
No need to avoid anything if you're not diabetic. Limit, sure. Avoid? Unnecessary.
However, 1/3 of the American Population may well be pre-diabetic, as per CDC statistics. In that case it makes perfect sense to lessen carbohydrate load. If only to stop pre-diabetes and/or insulin resistance progressing to T2 Diabetes. Natural or refined sugar: no difference in how the body processes those.
However, that means 2/3 of the population isn't. In America, we get physicals every year where we're screened for this and we get bloodwork and know what's up with this. No need to avoid "just in case". If you're pre-diabetic, avoid. If you're not, no need.
I don't understand your argument based on those facts.6 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »From the USDA 2015 guidelines. Argue with them, not me.
According to the 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines, we should limit our total daily consumption of added sugars to less than 10% of calories per day. This recommendation is to help achieve a healthy eating style. After eating foods from all food groups to meet nutrient needs, there is limited room for calories from added sugars. When added sugars in foods and beverages exceed 10% of calories, it may be difficult to achieve a healthy eating style that meets personal calorie limits.
A large body of science shows that eating styles with less added sugars are associated with reduced risk of cardiovascular disease in adults, and some evidence indicates that these styles are also associated with reduced risk of obesity, type 2 diabetes, and some types of cancer in adults.
Why would I argue with that...that seems accurate to me. What I disagree with is your claim earlier that somehow added sugar is different than naturally present sugar. That is a claim that YOU made, not that the WHO made...not that the USDA made and its not true. Its just that if you eat a lot of sugar you are getting a lot of empty calories that don't provide the nutrition you need and don't provide the satiation necessary to stay full. That doesn't mean that added sugar is any different than sugar that is present in a bananna...they are both sugar. Its just that one comes with dietary fiber and potassium and one doesn't. The sugar that is present in a bananna is the same fructose that is present in that added sugar, because fructose is sourced from plants. Sucrose, table sugar, also sourced from plants and is just the disaccharide of glucose and fructose. Its the same sugar.
Yeah, I get it. Sugar is sugar.
Just like water is water (H20). But there is great pure and delicious tasting water, and crappy foggy lousy tasting water that's highly purified to make it drinkable. Which water would you prefer?
So nobody cares that sugar is sugar. What you should care about is the blueberry is the equivalent to the great tasting water and the donut is equivalent to the lousy tasting water.
Repeating the sugar is sugar mantra to people who are not educated in nutrition is a big mistake. It should never be even stated, even though it is true. Actually, break it down into glucose, sucrose and fructose.
Why do you feel comparing a sugar from a blueberry, to a donut which has a lot of fat, salt and sugar as a solid comparison? The sugar that is used in donuts is extracted chemically equivalent. The nutrition, as stated by every person on this forum in response to your consistent argument, of a blueberry and a donut are not comparable. The comparison of the two is ridiculous in itself and used by people to try and make an absurd point. Extreme comparisons are not a valid argument. In the end, a person can have a diet that incorporates both foods. Personally, I tend to eat more fruits daily but on occasion, I do have a muffin.
Switch donut to a can of Coke (no fat, no salt). Eat the number of blueberries that have the same amount of sugar as the Coke. Now tell me what is the point of saying the sugar in Coke is the same as the sugar in the blueberries. It is chemically correct. But one is garbage, and one is very healthy. So what's the point.
Once that sugar is in your body, it's metabolized the same way. That's the point.5 -
Raptor2763 wrote: »Natural sugars aren't any big deal - it's the added sugar, ESPECIALLY the REFINED sugar one need to avoid. That's where reading labels comes in really handy
No need to avoid anything if you're not diabetic. Limit, sure. Avoid? Unnecessary.
However, 1/3 of the American Population may well be pre-diabetic, as per CDC statistics. In that case it makes perfect sense to lessen carbohydrate load. If only to stop pre-diabetes and/or insulin resistance progressing to T2 Diabetes. Natural or refined sugar: no difference in how the body processes those.
Considering carbs don't cause diabetes, no, there is no reason to avoid carbs. The fact is T2 is largely linked to poor body weight/composition, inactivity and genetics. You decrease the chances of diabetes by being a healthy weight and exercise.7 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »From the USDA 2015 guidelines. Argue with them, not me.
According to the 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines, we should limit our total daily consumption of added sugars to less than 10% of calories per day. This recommendation is to help achieve a healthy eating style. After eating foods from all food groups to meet nutrient needs, there is limited room for calories from added sugars. When added sugars in foods and beverages exceed 10% of calories, it may be difficult to achieve a healthy eating style that meets personal calorie limits.
A large body of science shows that eating styles with less added sugars are associated with reduced risk of cardiovascular disease in adults, and some evidence indicates that these styles are also associated with reduced risk of obesity, type 2 diabetes, and some types of cancer in adults.
Why would I argue with that...that seems accurate to me. What I disagree with is your claim earlier that somehow added sugar is different than naturally present sugar. That is a claim that YOU made, not that the WHO made...not that the USDA made and its not true. Its just that if you eat a lot of sugar you are getting a lot of empty calories that don't provide the nutrition you need and don't provide the satiation necessary to stay full. That doesn't mean that added sugar is any different than sugar that is present in a bananna...they are both sugar. Its just that one comes with dietary fiber and potassium and one doesn't. The sugar that is present in a bananna is the same fructose that is present in that added sugar, because fructose is sourced from plants. Sucrose, table sugar, also sourced from plants and is just the disaccharide of glucose and fructose. Its the same sugar.
Yeah, I get it. Sugar is sugar.
Just like water is water (H20). But there is great pure and delicious tasting water, and crappy foggy lousy tasting water that's highly purified to make it drinkable. Which water would you prefer?
So nobody cares that sugar is sugar. What you should care about is the blueberry is the equivalent to the great tasting water and the donut is equivalent to the lousy tasting water.
Repeating the sugar is sugar mantra to people who are not educated in nutrition is a big mistake. It should never be even stated, even though it is true. Actually, break it down into glucose, sucrose and fructose.
Why do you feel comparing a sugar from a blueberry, to a donut which has a lot of fat, salt and sugar as a solid comparison? The sugar that is used in donuts is extracted chemically equivalent. The nutrition, as stated by every person on this forum in response to your consistent argument, of a blueberry and a donut are not comparable. The comparison of the two is ridiculous in itself and used by people to try and make an absurd point. Extreme comparisons are not a valid argument. In the end, a person can have a diet that incorporates both foods. Personally, I tend to eat more fruits daily but on occasion, I do have a muffin.
Switch donut to a can of Coke (no fat, no salt). Eat the number of blueberries that have the same amount of sugar as the Coke. Now tell me what is the point of saying the sugar in Coke is the same as the sugar in the blueberries. It is chemically correct. But one is garbage, and one is very healthy. So what's the point.
Maybe it's a failure of yours to see the obvious, but no one advocates a diet high in soda. The argument is the sugar is the same, but satiation and nutrients aren't. But what is more important is looking at a diet in the total context. If you want to have a coke once in awhile because it helps them stay on track or they have been working hard and feel this would be a good treat, that is ok. But personally, I don't waste my calories by drinking. I am sure if we looked at your diary, we can find unhealthy items; potential very high levels of SFA or other nutrient deficient items. I just don't understand how you can't look at context and always have to make pedantic arguments.3 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Raptor2763 wrote: »Natural sugars aren't any big deal - it's the added sugar, ESPECIALLY the REFINED sugar one need to avoid. That's where reading labels comes in really handy
No need to avoid anything if you're not diabetic. Limit, sure. Avoid? Unnecessary.
However, 1/3 of the American Population may well be pre-diabetic, as per CDC statistics. In that case it makes perfect sense to lessen carbohydrate load. If only to stop pre-diabetes and/or insulin resistance progressing to T2 Diabetes. Natural or refined sugar: no difference in how the body processes those.
However, that means 2/3 of the population isn't. In America, we get physicals every year where we're screened for this and we get bloodwork and know what's up with this. No need to avoid "just in case". If you're pre-diabetic, avoid. If you're not, no need.
I don't understand your argument based on those facts.
I would bet that a very signficant percentage of Americans do not get a physical every year, or even every five years.
0 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Raptor2763 wrote: »Natural sugars aren't any big deal - it's the added sugar, ESPECIALLY the REFINED sugar one need to avoid. That's where reading labels comes in really handy
No need to avoid anything if you're not diabetic. Limit, sure. Avoid? Unnecessary.
However, 1/3 of the American Population may well be pre-diabetic, as per CDC statistics. In that case it makes perfect sense to lessen carbohydrate load. If only to stop pre-diabetes and/or insulin resistance progressing to T2 Diabetes. Natural or refined sugar: no difference in how the body processes those.
However, that means 2/3 of the population isn't. In America, we get physicals every year where we're screened for this and we get bloodwork and know what's up with this. No need to avoid "just in case". If you're pre-diabetic, avoid. If you're not, no need.
I don't understand your argument based on those facts.
I would be that a very signficant percentage of Americans do not get a physical every year, or even every five years.
Doesn't matter. What matters is that the fact that the majority of Americans aren't prediabetic and that carbohydrates don't cause diabetes. Obesity and lack of activity do.4 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Raptor2763 wrote: »Natural sugars aren't any big deal - it's the added sugar, ESPECIALLY the REFINED sugar one need to avoid. That's where reading labels comes in really handy
No need to avoid anything if you're not diabetic. Limit, sure. Avoid? Unnecessary.
However, 1/3 of the American Population may well be pre-diabetic, as per CDC statistics. In that case it makes perfect sense to lessen carbohydrate load. If only to stop pre-diabetes and/or insulin resistance progressing to T2 Diabetes. Natural or refined sugar: no difference in how the body processes those.
However, that means 2/3 of the population isn't. In America, we get physicals every year where we're screened for this and we get bloodwork and know what's up with this. No need to avoid "just in case". If you're pre-diabetic, avoid. If you're not, no need.
I don't understand your argument based on those facts.
I would bet that a very signficant percentage of Americans do not get a physical every year, or even every five years.
Even if true, it just means people aren't proactive with their health and rather are reactive. Either way, I am not sure what kind of point you are trying to make. And I am sure this applies to people throughout the world, not just america.2 -
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions