Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
CICO is not the whole equation
Options
Replies
-
Tacklewasher wrote: »The only issue with sugar is it is calorie dense. Beyond that, excluding medical issues, it's fine. Don't know why this is still an argument.
I think it comes up a lot because a good half of all people do have health issues (T2D, T1D, prediabetes, insulin resistance, PCOS, NAFLD, Alzheimier's, CAD and a few cancers) that are made less healthy by sugar (large amounts of it - not a teaspoon or so a day). People who are made less healthy by sugar isn't a small minority. My guess is that it may be a majority now.
I'm not convinced on about 1/2 of your list. I worry that the list grows every time Taubes opens his mouth, and that there is not real evidence for a good chunk of it.10 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »The only issue with sugar is it is calorie dense. Beyond that, excluding medical issues, it's fine. Don't know why this is still an argument.
I think it comes up a lot because a good half of all people do have health issues (T2D, T1D, prediabetes, insulin resistance, PCOS, NAFLD, Alzheimier's, CAD and a few cancers) that are made less healthy by sugar (large amounts of it - not a teaspoon or so a day). People who are made less healthy by sugar isn't a small minority. My guess is that it may be a majority now.
your guess is wrong2 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »The only issue with sugar is it is calorie dense. Beyond that, excluding medical issues, it's fine. Don't know why this is still an argument.
I think it comes up a lot because a good half of all people do have health issues (T2D, T1D, prediabetes, insulin resistance, PCOS, NAFLD, Alzheimier's, CAD and a few cancers) that are made less healthy by sugar (large amounts of it - not a teaspoon or so a day). People who are made less healthy by sugar isn't a small minority. My guess is that it may be a majority now.
Honest question, how do overconsumption of fats, or any other foods, work into this equation?
I certainly don't know about anyone else, but I do know how I got to being obese, and that was by overconsumption of a lot of different foods, and sugar was not the main reason certainly. I was an equal opportunity overindulger, I love food and ate too much of everything. I may be the only person to do this, but I really find it hard to believe that I am.
8 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »The only issue with sugar is it is calorie dense. Beyond that, excluding medical issues, it's fine. Don't know why this is still an argument.
I think it comes up a lot because a good half of all people do have health issues (T2D, T1D, prediabetes, insulin resistance, PCOS, NAFLD, Alzheimier's, CAD and a few cancers) that are made less healthy by sugar (large amounts of it - not a teaspoon or so a day). People who are made less healthy by sugar isn't a small minority. My guess is that it may be a majority now.
Not asking to be argumentative...just curious...
Do you think however that there is a percentage of people that use "bad bad sugar" as scapegoat for their lack of control and/or their bad diets? It just seems as if more and more people are showing up that says "I can't lose weight...it must be sugar.". How many of that "half of all people" are self-diagnosing and just using the latest fad.
BTW...I think the same thing happened when it was "bad bad fat". Someone told them that fat made you fat and unhealthy so many people blamed the fat.5 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »The only issue with sugar is it is calorie dense. Beyond that, excluding medical issues, it's fine. Don't know why this is still an argument.
I think it comes up a lot because a good half of all people do have health issues (T2D, T1D, prediabetes, insulin resistance, PCOS, NAFLD, Alzheimier's, CAD and a few cancers) that are made less healthy by sugar (large amounts of it - not a teaspoon or so a day). People who are made less healthy by sugar isn't a small minority. My guess is that it may be a majority now.
Not asking to be argumentative...just curious...
Do you think however that there is a percentage of people that use "bad bad sugar" as scapegoat for their lack of control and/or their bad diets? It just seems as if more and more people are showing up that says "I can't lose weight...it must be sugar.". How many of that "half of all people" are self-diagnosing and just using the latest fad.
BTW...I think the same thing happened when it was "bad bad fat". Someone told them that fat made you fat and unhealthy so many people blamed the fat.
Others blame protein. All three do have something in common however.
It my case when I stopped eating sugar and all forms of grains my food cravings faded which helped my lose weight and keep it off for the past two years. I expect a Candida overgrowth in my case was a factor causing my failing health before I changed my Way Of Eating.0 -
3rdof7sisters wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »The only issue with sugar is it is calorie dense. Beyond that, excluding medical issues, it's fine. Don't know why this is still an argument.
I think it comes up a lot because a good half of all people do have health issues (T2D, T1D, prediabetes, insulin resistance, PCOS, NAFLD, Alzheimier's, CAD and a few cancers) that are made less healthy by sugar (large amounts of it - not a teaspoon or so a day). People who are made less healthy by sugar isn't a small minority. My guess is that it may be a majority now.
Honest question, how do overconsumption of fats, or any other foods, work into this equation?
I certainly don't know about anyone else, but I do know how I got to being obese, and that was by overconsumption of a lot of different foods, and sugar was not the main reason certainly. I was an equal opportunity overindulger, I love food and ate too much of everything. I may be the only person to do this, but I really find it hard to believe that I am.
they don't because fats are angels and sugar is satan ..
4 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »The only issue with sugar is it is calorie dense. Beyond that, excluding medical issues, it's fine. Don't know why this is still an argument.
I think it comes up a lot because a good half of all people do have health issues (T2D, T1D, prediabetes, insulin resistance, PCOS, NAFLD, Alzheimier's, CAD and a few cancers) that are made less healthy by sugar (large amounts of it - not a teaspoon or so a day). People who are made less healthy by sugar isn't a small minority. My guess is that it may be a majority now.
Not asking to be argumentative...just curious...
Do you think however that there is a percentage of people that use "bad bad sugar" as scapegoat for their lack of control and/or their bad diets? It just seems as if more and more people are showing up that says "I can't lose weight...it must be sugar.". How many of that "half of all people" are self-diagnosing and just using the latest fad.
BTW...I think the same thing happened when it was "bad bad fat". Someone told them that fat made you fat and unhealthy so many people blamed the fat.
Others blame protein. All three do have something in common however.
They're delicious and easy to overeat by people who are particular fans of them.
6 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »SymbolismNZ wrote: »The main ingredient in ice cream is sugar, by a pure calorie basis - and generally you've got sugar ontop of sugar in icecream due to flavourings too, but nice try.
Depends on the ice cream, but usually it's about half sugar, half fat (and the fat is all dairy fat). To me it's pretty much interchangeable with cheese -- I like both, eat both because I think they are tasty and not because I pretend they are good for me, and I find that both tend to increase my satisfaction with my diet and so help me eat an overall nutrient dense, calorie appropriate diet. Yeah, overall for the same calories the ice cream has some sugar and the cheese more sat fat, but I don't agree with your assumption that fat = good, sugar = bad, in all cases -- IMO, my sat fat and sugar levels are fine on a total amount so no harm in including either the cheese or ice cream, but I don't have a need for what is contributed by either and my diet in terms of overall nutrients is not better because of either (better because tastier and more satisfying, sure).
I'd put drinking a glass of good wine or beer in that category too, although I personally don't drink. (And I'd say that's not the same thing as "using" booze or "using" food or whatever you are trying to imply with that.)
Anyway, to support the half fat/half sugar claim, although specific ice creams vary, of course: I have a basic chocolate ice cream recipe in my recipe box, and it comes in as exactly half and half -- 72 calories from sugar, 72 from fat. Some of the sugar is from dairy, though.
I pulled the newest Jeni flavor's nutrition label (there's a Jeni's on my street and I'm a fan), and it has the new nutrition label. It's Bangkok Peanut flavor. I am adjusting to 1/3 a cup, as to me 200 calories of ice cream occasionally seems normal. .5 cup (the old serving) would be about 300 calories, so a high cal ice cream, yes.
For the .33 cup, it's 200 calories of which 74 calories are from sugar, 56 of those from added sugar, and 108 calories from fat. Also 18 calories from of protein. So for that one more of the calories are from fat, although presumably some of the fat is from peanut, not dairy fat.
This amazes me no end. I really couldn't eat just one third c. of ice cream, specially anything called Peanut! Kudos on your amazing capacities at restricting (what I would call it your special foods. Maybe someday I'll be there too, but at this point I'd rather go for two oranges, or a banana or 200 calories of FF yogurt and a bit of cocoa, than .33 cup of ice cream.
That's why I like the tracking of calories as a way of losing and maintaining, its is so flexible, and, everyone can have their fare according to their taste.
1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »SymbolismNZ wrote: »The main ingredient in ice cream is sugar, by a pure calorie basis - and generally you've got sugar ontop of sugar in icecream due to flavourings too, but nice try.
Depends on the ice cream, but usually it's about half sugar, half fat (and the fat is all dairy fat). To me it's pretty much interchangeable with cheese -- I like both, eat both because I think they are tasty and not because I pretend they are good for me, and I find that both tend to increase my satisfaction with my diet and so help me eat an overall nutrient dense, calorie appropriate diet. Yeah, overall for the same calories the ice cream has some sugar and the cheese more sat fat, but I don't agree with your assumption that fat = good, sugar = bad, in all cases -- IMO, my sat fat and sugar levels are fine on a total amount so no harm in including either the cheese or ice cream, but I don't have a need for what is contributed by either and my diet in terms of overall nutrients is not better because of either (better because tastier and more satisfying, sure).
I'd put drinking a glass of good wine or beer in that category too, although I personally don't drink. (And I'd say that's not the same thing as "using" booze or "using" food or whatever you are trying to imply with that.)
Anyway, to support the half fat/half sugar claim, although specific ice creams vary, of course: I have a basic chocolate ice cream recipe in my recipe box, and it comes in as exactly half and half -- 72 calories from sugar, 72 from fat. Some of the sugar is from dairy, though.
I pulled the newest Jeni flavor's nutrition label (there's a Jeni's on my street and I'm a fan), and it has the new nutrition label. It's Bangkok Peanut flavor. I am adjusting to 1/3 a cup, as to me 200 calories of ice cream occasionally seems normal. .5 cup (the old serving) would be about 300 calories, so a high cal ice cream, yes.
For the .33 cup, it's 200 calories of which 74 calories are from sugar, 56 of those from added sugar, and 108 calories from fat. Also 18 calories from of protein. So for that one more of the calories are from fat, although presumably some of the fat is from peanut, not dairy fat.
This amazes me no end. I really couldn't eat just one third c. of ice cream, specially anything called Peanut! Kudos on your amazing capacities at restricting (what I would call it your special foods.
It amazes me too! A third of a cup of ice cream would would be a tiny sad taste and I'd end up getting more, so a pointless exercise too..
2 -
@SymbolismNZ If you like ice cream but dont like the macros, you should check out "Peters no sugar added vanilla ice cream", this is what I have and tastes better than regular ice cream.
Per 200g (my serving size)- 244 calories
- 17g carbs
- 13g Fibre
- 11g protein
- 6g Fat
- 17g sugar
3 -
Christine_72 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »SymbolismNZ wrote: »The main ingredient in ice cream is sugar, by a pure calorie basis - and generally you've got sugar ontop of sugar in icecream due to flavourings too, but nice try.
Depends on the ice cream, but usually it's about half sugar, half fat (and the fat is all dairy fat). To me it's pretty much interchangeable with cheese -- I like both, eat both because I think they are tasty and not because I pretend they are good for me, and I find that both tend to increase my satisfaction with my diet and so help me eat an overall nutrient dense, calorie appropriate diet. Yeah, overall for the same calories the ice cream has some sugar and the cheese more sat fat, but I don't agree with your assumption that fat = good, sugar = bad, in all cases -- IMO, my sat fat and sugar levels are fine on a total amount so no harm in including either the cheese or ice cream, but I don't have a need for what is contributed by either and my diet in terms of overall nutrients is not better because of either (better because tastier and more satisfying, sure).
I'd put drinking a glass of good wine or beer in that category too, although I personally don't drink. (And I'd say that's not the same thing as "using" booze or "using" food or whatever you are trying to imply with that.)
Anyway, to support the half fat/half sugar claim, although specific ice creams vary, of course: I have a basic chocolate ice cream recipe in my recipe box, and it comes in as exactly half and half -- 72 calories from sugar, 72 from fat. Some of the sugar is from dairy, though.
I pulled the newest Jeni flavor's nutrition label (there's a Jeni's on my street and I'm a fan), and it has the new nutrition label. It's Bangkok Peanut flavor. I am adjusting to 1/3 a cup, as to me 200 calories of ice cream occasionally seems normal. .5 cup (the old serving) would be about 300 calories, so a high cal ice cream, yes.
For the .33 cup, it's 200 calories of which 74 calories are from sugar, 56 of those from added sugar, and 108 calories from fat. Also 18 calories from of protein. So for that one more of the calories are from fat, although presumably some of the fat is from peanut, not dairy fat.
This amazes me no end. I really couldn't eat just one third c. of ice cream, specially anything called Peanut! Kudos on your amazing capacities at restricting (what I would call it your special foods.
It amazes me too! A third of a cup of ice cream would would be a tiny sad taste and I'd end up getting more, so a pointless exercise too..
I must admit. When I have ice cream, I have 2 servings and have a sad look on my face remembering how much I used to eat.1 -
Sure it can easily be debated. What do "good carbs" break down into? What do carbs from vegetables break down to?But in general sugar is not good for you. I cant believe there is any debate about that simple fact.
Without sugar, how does the body perform physical activity?
So again, how is sugar NOT good for you? If you're talking about EXCESS, then yes. But dosage does matter.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
8 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »SymbolismNZ wrote: »The main ingredient in ice cream is sugar, by a pure calorie basis - and generally you've got sugar ontop of sugar in icecream due to flavourings too, but nice try.
Depends on the ice cream, but usually it's about half sugar, half fat (and the fat is all dairy fat). To me it's pretty much interchangeable with cheese -- I like both, eat both because I think they are tasty and not because I pretend they are good for me, and I find that both tend to increase my satisfaction with my diet and so help me eat an overall nutrient dense, calorie appropriate diet. Yeah, overall for the same calories the ice cream has some sugar and the cheese more sat fat, but I don't agree with your assumption that fat = good, sugar = bad, in all cases -- IMO, my sat fat and sugar levels are fine on a total amount so no harm in including either the cheese or ice cream, but I don't have a need for what is contributed by either and my diet in terms of overall nutrients is not better because of either (better because tastier and more satisfying, sure).
I'd put drinking a glass of good wine or beer in that category too, although I personally don't drink. (And I'd say that's not the same thing as "using" booze or "using" food or whatever you are trying to imply with that.)
Anyway, to support the half fat/half sugar claim, although specific ice creams vary, of course: I have a basic chocolate ice cream recipe in my recipe box, and it comes in as exactly half and half -- 72 calories from sugar, 72 from fat. Some of the sugar is from dairy, though.
I pulled the newest Jeni flavor's nutrition label (there's a Jeni's on my street and I'm a fan), and it has the new nutrition label. It's Bangkok Peanut flavor. I am adjusting to 1/3 a cup, as to me 200 calories of ice cream occasionally seems normal. .5 cup (the old serving) would be about 300 calories, so a high cal ice cream, yes.
For the .33 cup, it's 200 calories of which 74 calories are from sugar, 56 of those from added sugar, and 108 calories from fat. Also 18 calories from of protein. So for that one more of the calories are from fat, although presumably some of the fat is from peanut, not dairy fat.
This amazes me no end. I really couldn't eat just one third c. of ice cream, specially anything called Peanut! Kudos on your amazing capacities at restricting (what I would call it your special foods.
It amazes me too! A third of a cup of ice cream would would be a tiny sad taste and I'd end up getting more, so a pointless exercise too..
I must admit. When I have ice cream, I have 2 servings and have a sad look on my face remembering how much I used to eat.
Sitting in front of the tv polishing off a heavenly pint of peanut butter ice cream with not a care in the world, ahhh good memories
One of the reasons i love the ice cream i mentioned in my last post is because i can have a decent size bowl for only 200ish calories and be happy and satisfied. 200g is the perfect amount for me, no idea how that converts in to cups??
Edit: I just did a quick google and 1/2 a cup of ice cream is roughly only 68g. Surely they jest
:noway: 1 -
Christine_72 wrote: »@SymbolismNZ If you like ice cream but dont like the macros, you should check out "Peters no sugar added vanilla ice cream", this is what I have and tastes better than regular ice cream.
Per 200g (my serving size)- 244 calories
- 17g carbs
- 13g Fibre
- 11g protein
- 6g Fat
- 17g sugar
I don't really have a sweet tooth, I also don't eat refined sugars of any type where I can avoid it so ultimately I'd much rather use those calories on some beautiful pork belly, or cheese sauce on my broccoli.
I do find it interesting people maintain that there is no research indicating sugar (at any level) being correlated to higher risks of many disorders, but not surprised that most trot out the same old "Sugar doesn't make you fat, Sugar isn't addictive" routine.
"How is Refined Sugar not good for you?"
I mean; you could either look at the growing amount of research indicating the increased risks associated with consumption of refined sugar and corn syrups, or you could look at the growing amount of nutritional scientists who completely cut it from their diet (with very small exceptions), or you could just trot out the same lines that "Sugar isn't bad for you as long as it's not excessive"
Even those (with a background in research) who advocate refined sugar as not being bad for you, generally do so with the suffix "So long as you see it as an occasional treat"
Like I keep saying, it's your preference, you're leaning on the same crutches that those who consume alcohol, marijuana, nicotine or psilocybin lean on. It doesn't make you a bad person, also won't have massively detrimental impacts to your health in the next few years, but it probably is eroding your longevity based on the research.
-1 -
If you want to debate the differences between refined sugary *kitten* as a source of carbohydrate or say a capsicum; the key point is glycemic index, and how the glucose that is generated enters and ultimately exits your system.
The whole "Well everything gets broken down into glucose" mentality shows a limited understanding of why fibrous carbohydrates are far better for fuel throughout the day; runners who subsist on glucose shots and gels versus those eating bananas, apples and fruits - you can generally tell the difference because the professionals and leaders of the pack aren't the ones chugging down *kitten* to spike their glucose temporarily.
Also, you could easily exist without any form of sugar because your body undertakes gluconeogenesis to convert excess protein and excess fatty acids into a form of glucose for your blood stream.
Also, stop saying "sugar" and start saying "refined sugar" - sugar itself, (ga)lactose, fructose, dextrose - are all perfectly fine and all perfectly healthy.
0 -
Do you know what "refined" sugar is?8
-
Glycemic index is only relevant when considering a food item in isolation, eaten in a fasted state. GI is modulated by fats and proteins, whether they're taken in simultaneously with the carbs or already in the system being metabolized.SymbolismNZ wrote: »
If you want to debate the differences between refined sugary *kitten* as a source of carbohydrate or say a capsicum; the key point is glycemic index, and how the glucose that is generated enters and ultimately exits your system.
Your error is in the belief that your system treats refined sugar any differently than any other sugar.SymbolismNZ wrote: »Also, stop saying "sugar" and start saying "refined sugar" - sugar itself, (ga)lactose, fructose, dextrose - are all perfectly fine and all perfectly healthy.14 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »SymbolismNZ wrote: »The main ingredient in ice cream is sugar, by a pure calorie basis - and generally you've got sugar ontop of sugar in icecream due to flavourings too, but nice try.
Depends on the ice cream, but usually it's about half sugar, half fat (and the fat is all dairy fat). To me it's pretty much interchangeable with cheese -- I like both, eat both because I think they are tasty and not because I pretend they are good for me, and I find that both tend to increase my satisfaction with my diet and so help me eat an overall nutrient dense, calorie appropriate diet. Yeah, overall for the same calories the ice cream has some sugar and the cheese more sat fat, but I don't agree with your assumption that fat = good, sugar = bad, in all cases -- IMO, my sat fat and sugar levels are fine on a total amount so no harm in including either the cheese or ice cream, but I don't have a need for what is contributed by either and my diet in terms of overall nutrients is not better because of either (better because tastier and more satisfying, sure).
I'd put drinking a glass of good wine or beer in that category too, although I personally don't drink. (And I'd say that's not the same thing as "using" booze or "using" food or whatever you are trying to imply with that.)
Anyway, to support the half fat/half sugar claim, although specific ice creams vary, of course: I have a basic chocolate ice cream recipe in my recipe box, and it comes in as exactly half and half -- 72 calories from sugar, 72 from fat. Some of the sugar is from dairy, though.
I pulled the newest Jeni flavor's nutrition label (there's a Jeni's on my street and I'm a fan), and it has the new nutrition label. It's Bangkok Peanut flavor. I am adjusting to 1/3 a cup, as to me 200 calories of ice cream occasionally seems normal. .5 cup (the old serving) would be about 300 calories, so a high cal ice cream, yes.
For the .33 cup, it's 200 calories of which 74 calories are from sugar, 56 of those from added sugar, and 108 calories from fat. Also 18 calories from of protein. So for that one more of the calories are from fat, although presumably some of the fat is from peanut, not dairy fat.
This amazes me no end. I really couldn't eat just one third c. of ice cream, specially anything called Peanut! Kudos on your amazing capacities at restricting (what I would call it your special foods.
It amazes me too! A third of a cup of ice cream would would be a tiny sad taste and I'd end up getting more, so a pointless exercise too..
I must admit. When I have ice cream, I have 2 servings and have a sad look on my face remembering how much I used to eat.
That's one area where I'm lucky. I do a serving just fine because that's what I've always done and can even do half a serving with the right type of ice cream. Now if only nuts were this easy.3 -
SymbolismNZ wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »@SymbolismNZ If you like ice cream but dont like the macros, you should check out "Peters no sugar added vanilla ice cream", this is what I have and tastes better than regular ice cream.
Per 200g (my serving size)- 244 calories
- 17g carbs
- 13g Fibre
- 11g protein
- 6g Fat
- 17g sugar
I don't really have a sweet tooth, I also don't eat refined sugars of any type where I can avoid it so ultimately I'd much rather use those calories on some beautiful pork belly, or cheese sauce on my broccoli.
I do find it interesting people maintain that there is no research indicating sugar (at any level) being correlated to higher risks of many disorders, but not surprised that most trot out the same old "Sugar doesn't make you fat, Sugar isn't addictive" routine.
"How is Refined Sugar not good for you?"
I mean; you could either look at the growing amount of research indicating the increased risks associated with consumption of refined sugar and corn syrups, or you could look at the growing amount of nutritional scientists who completely cut it from their diet (with very small exceptions), or you could just trot out the same lines that "Sugar isn't bad for you as long as it's not excessive"
Even those (with a background in research) who advocate refined sugar as not being bad for you, generally do so with the suffix "So long as you see it as an occasional treat"
Like I keep saying, it's your preference, you're leaning on the same crutches that those who consume alcohol, marijuana, nicotine or psilocybin lean on. It doesn't make you a bad person, also won't have massively detrimental impacts to your health in the next few years, but it probably is eroding your longevity based on the research.
Correlation is not and never will be causation...7 -
SymbolismNZ wrote: »I know people can't read; so like I've previously said, it's not worth the debate..
When in doubt, resort to insults...10
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K 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
- 390 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions