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.
What commonly given MFP Forum advice do you personally disagree with?
Replies
-
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Posters saying to not be concerned about intake of added sugars even though the WHO, USDA, American Heart Association etc all say their intake should be limited.
It might be that's because we are on a weight loss/gain site not a diabetes prevention one. And a lot of question will be phrased like "can I eat this ans still lose weight ?". If someone is obese, I think them losing weight is more critical than how much sugar they eat in order of priority.
But yeah I agree with you, and it should always be contextual to the question asked.
Actually the USDA/WHO/AHA guidelines on sugar don't really call out diabetes prevention and don't say these recommendations aren't just for those overweight/obese.
Is losing weigh important of course. These organization's recommendations based on the research say that consuming fewer added sugars is a big bang for the buck way to get there for the general population.
USDA
What’s the Problem with Added Sugars?
Eating and drinking too many foods and beverages with added sugars makes
it difficult to achieve a healthy eating pattern without taking in too many
calories. Added sugars contribute calories, but no essential nutrients.
https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/resources/DGA_Cut-Down-On-Added-Sugars.pdf
WHO
The recommendations are based on analysis of the latest scientific evidence. This evidence shows, first, that adults who consume less sugars have lower body weight and, second, that increasing the amount of sugars in the diet is associated with a weight increase.
https://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2015/sugar-guideline/en/
The best researchers in the world on this topic are in agreement that added sugars should be significantly reduced from current levels of consumption. Not really sure who else you want to be listening to on this topic.
Exactly. Both orgs recommend limiting added sugars because they tend to cause people to eat too many calories. If you are already controlling your calories on MFP, you probably don't have to worry about watching your sugar intake. And if you are watching your macros and making sure you're getting enough protein and fat, it would be incredibly difficult to do that and still end up with too much added sugar.
Once someone has their calories, protein, fat, and fiber down, if they want to play with another variable, go for it and watch your "added sugar". But I'd bet that if they have everything else down, their added sugar isn't even close to being a problem.32 -
quiksylver296 wrote: »"You can't get bulky by accident"
Which is just straight up not true. I understand the sentiment, it's saying that you are not going to suddenly become muscular without doing anything that would allow this to happen.
But I have several cases of anecdotal evidence from people who do not lift where they have unintentionally become more bulky than they'd like/realised. This is when you're doing an exercise that builds muscles, but you don't realise it.
Like my friend did when she took up rowing. Or like me when for years, literal years, I thought I just had fat arms. The reason I cannot wear long sleeved blouses or find blazers that fit was because of my fat arms. Until another (female) judo player mentioned, in passing, how they hated how they couldn't wear long sleeves as clothing companies don't think that women should have muscles and how judo players have muscular arms. And yeah, suddenly it made sense, when I tense my muscles I can see that there's a lot there, and that, yeah, I have got bulky by accident. For reference: I don't lift, I don't go to the gym, I don't do weight exercises. I judo twice a week and that's all the strength related training I do. And this has been the case for years. So no, it is certainly possible to become bulky by accident.
Must be genetics. I did judo for years, and never got "bulky". Two+ years hardcore in the gym, though? Yep, SUPAH BULKY!!!
Or maybe it's how you vs they think of "bulky"?13 -
quiksylver296 wrote: »"You can't get bulky by accident"
Which is just straight up not true. I understand the sentiment, it's saying that you are not going to suddenly become muscular without doing anything that would allow this to happen.
But I have several cases of anecdotal evidence from people who do not lift where they have unintentionally become more bulky than they'd like/realised. This is when you're doing an exercise that builds muscles, but you don't realise it.
Like my friend did when she took up rowing. Or like me when for years, literal years, I thought I just had fat arms. The reason I cannot wear long sleeved blouses or find blazers that fit was because of my fat arms. Until another (female) judo player mentioned, in passing, how they hated how they couldn't wear long sleeves as clothing companies don't think that women should have muscles and how judo players have muscular arms. And yeah, suddenly it made sense, when I tense my muscles I can see that there's a lot there, and that, yeah, I have got bulky by accident. For reference: I don't lift, I don't go to the gym, I don't do weight exercises. I judo twice a week and that's all the strength related training I do. And this has been the case for years. So no, it is certainly possible to become bulky by accident.
Must be genetics. I did judo for years, and never got "bulky". Two+ years hardcore in the gym, though? Yep, SUPAH BULKY!!!
Or maybe it's how you vs they think of "bulky"?
I don't know. She's talking about arms not fitting in sleeves. Did not have that problem doing judo. I do have that problem now. That's what I was referring to.3 -
I have a very hard time with the fact that MFP disregards nutrition other than general categories of carbs, protein and fat, when discussing weight loss. It's like this site views weight loss as if it were totally disconnected from essential human health.
It's true that all you need in order to lose weight is a calorie deficit. But that doesn't mean that you can afford to disregard actual nutrition. Sure, you could lose weight by eating nothing but candy bars, as long as you kept under your calorie goal. And you could probably hit all your MFP macros by adding a protein shake or two to that candy bar diet. But your body as a whole organism would not thrive.
It's like most people on MFP are so fixated on losing weight that they want to join together in an aggressive, in-your-face denial of nutritional facts. "There are no bad foods," is like biblical scripture here.
If you fill up your calorie allotment with added sugars and low-nutrient, highly processed junk food and fast food, you are not going to be healthy -- even if you are losing weight. There is a reason to eat a wide variety of nutrient dense foods and minimize added sugars. Human beings need the wide range of micronutrients and trace elements that occur in fresh produce, good quality proteins, legumes, etc.
As the poster previous to this pointed out, it's a matter of priority. People who come to this site obese and facing health-related complications will see the most benefit from getting some of the weight off, regardless of the makeup of their diet. In my own experience and observation, they are most likely to succeed in that goal if they aren't trying to completely overhaul their diet all at once. The observation that "there are no bad foods" has never been used to promote the idea that people should live off candy bars and fast food, but simply to take the pressure off people who think to succeed they need to have a 100% nutritious diet, which would make the process unsustainable for the vast majority of people. As time goes on, I think people tend to realize that too many empty calories in their diet hinders them from achieving their goals, and make changes accordingly. But to insist that they comply with a very strict nutritional profile out of the gate is counter-productive, IMO.
35 -
nevermind.2
-
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Posters saying to not be concerned about intake of added sugars even though the WHO, USDA, American Heart Association etc all say their intake should be limited.
It might be that's because we are on a weight loss/gain site not a diabetes prevention one. And a lot of question will be phrased like "can I eat this ans still lose weight ?". If someone is obese, I think them losing weight is more critical than how much sugar they eat in order of priority.
But yeah I agree with you, and it should always be contextual to the question asked.
Actually the USDA/WHO/AHA guidelines on sugar don't really call out diabetes prevention and don't say these recommendations aren't just for those overweight/obese.
Is losing weigh important of course. These organization's recommendations based on the research say that consuming fewer added sugars is a big bang for the buck way to get there for the general population.
USDA
What’s the Problem with Added Sugars?
Eating and drinking too many foods and beverages with added sugars makes
it difficult to achieve a healthy eating pattern without taking in too many
calories. Added sugars contribute calories, but no essential nutrients.
https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/resources/DGA_Cut-Down-On-Added-Sugars.pdf
WHO
The recommendations are based on analysis of the latest scientific evidence. This evidence shows, first, that adults who consume less sugars have lower body weight and, second, that increasing the amount of sugars in the diet is associated with a weight increase.
https://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2015/sugar-guideline/en/
The best researchers in the world on this topic are in agreement that added sugars should be significantly reduced from current levels of consumption. Not really sure who else you want to be listening to on this topic.
Exactly. Both orgs recommend limiting added sugars because they tend to cause people to eat too many calories. If you are already controlling your calories on MFP, you probably don't have to worry about watching your sugar intake. And if you are watching your macros and making sure you're getting enough protein and fat, it would be incredibly difficult to do that and still end up with too much added sugar.
Once someone has their calories, protein, fat, and fiber down, if they want to play with another variable, go for it and watch your "added sugar". But I'd bet that if they have everything else down, their added sugar isn't even close to being a problem.
Yes! When I started logging my food and counting calories, it became very apparent where the extra calories were coming from. I knew I couldn't cut out things like protein, high-quality carbs, & healthy fats or I would be gnawing my arm off (and had I not known that, I would have found out real quick), so I looked at things like sugary drinks, candy, & white bread. The nutritional profile of my diet improved greatly just by concentrating on my calories & satiety. It can happen naturally without a person being told you "have" to eat this way, which of course, people just love 12 -
I have a very hard time with the fact that MFP disregards nutrition other than general categories of carbs, protein and fat, when discussing weight loss. It's like this site views weight loss as if it were totally disconnected from essential human health.
It's true that all you need in order to lose weight is a calorie deficit. But that doesn't mean that you can afford to disregard actual nutrition. Sure, you could lose weight by eating nothing but candy bars, as long as you kept under your calorie goal. And you could probably hit all your MFP macros by adding a protein shake or two to that candy bar diet. But your body as a whole organism would not thrive.
"About 85% of Americans do not consume the US Food and Drug Administration’s recommended daily intakes of the most important vitamins and minerals necessary for proper physical and mental development."
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/feb/10/nutrition-hunger-food-children-vitamins-us
"Malnutrition is thought of as a distant issue, but this condition often goes hand-in-hand with eight chronic diseases, and it costs the U.S. $15.5 billion annually in direct costs."
http://www.nutritionnews.abbott/nutrition-as-medicine/malnutrition-in-america.html
Anytime anyone mentions comparative nutritional value on here, they are "woo"ed to death. Even something as mild as stating that whole grain breads and brown rice are healthier than white bread and white rice provokes a chorus of disagreement. As if the key nutrients in complex carbohydrates and the outer germ and bran of grains (fiber, B vitamins, iron, folate, selenium, potassium and magnesium) are somehow meaningless. As if this advice from Mayo Clinic, based on accepted science, doesn't count:
"Whole grains are also linked to a lower risk of heart disease, diabetes, certain cancers and other health problems."
And MFP is one of the only sites I know of (outside of the Coca Cola website, maybe) where the SCIENTIFICALLY AGREED-UPON FACT that sugar is actually bad for you is treated as some sort of radical opinion. Science is real, people. No matter how many "woos" you give it.
It is not only people who have diabetes who have to think about sugar. To quote just one of the uniform knowledgeable sources:
“Regardless of their Healthy Eating Index scores, people who ate more sugar still had higher cardiovascular mortality,” says Dr. Teresa Fung, adjunct professor of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/eating-too-much-added-sugar-increases-the-risk-of-dying-with-heart-disease-201402067021
It's like most people on MFP are so fixated on losing weight that they want to join together in an aggressive, in-your-face denial of nutritional facts. "There are no bad foods," is like biblical scripture here.
If you fill up your calorie allotment with added sugars and low-nutrient, highly processed junk food and fast food, you are not going to be healthy -- even if you are losing weight. There is a reason to eat a wide variety of nutrient dense foods and minimize added sugars. Human beings need the wide range of micronutrients and trace elements that occur in fresh produce, good quality proteins, legumes, etc.
Science is real.
I've never seen anyone here told that it doesn't matter what they eat. The advice is more like "In the context of a diet that meets your nutritional needs, you don't need to stress about added sugar." Nobody is told to "fill up" their calorie allotment with low nutrient foods because it would be very difficult to do that and meet your nutritional needs.
That quote from Teresa Fung is talking about a study where the cardiovascular risk was higher in people who were getting 25% of their calories from added sugar. As I asked in another post where that blog post was shared, how would you construct a diet where one was meeting one's nutritional needs and getting 25% of calories from added sugar? That would be 500 calories of sugar for me and I can't imagine how I could put that many calories into sugar and still meet my needs. Can you show me a diet plan where that is taking place?21 -
I have a very hard time with the fact that MFP disregards nutrition other than general categories of carbs, protein and fat, when discussing weight loss. It's like this site views weight loss as if it were totally disconnected from essential human health.
I just don't think this is true AT ALL. The advice I give, and that I see others give over and over, is that calories are what matter for weight loss, but that nutrition matters for health and for most people food choice matters for satiety, which makes it much easier to stick with calories.
The thing is that what food choices will work for a person is going to depend on that person, and rather than me lecturing you about what to eat, it makes more sense to make some general comments about some possible considerations (protein, fiber, play around with fat vs. carbs, might be meal timing), and let the person figure it out.
As for nutrition, we aren't idiots, everyone knows generally what a good diet looks like (base meals around protein, include lots of vegetables, ideally some fruit and a wide variety of nutrient-dense and fiber rich foods, low nutrient/high cal foods are fine in moderation, but you wouldn't want to make them the base of your diet). People know this, the advice doesn't ignore it, but sometimes it's not what's being asked about.
No one is told to disregard actual nutrition. That's just not what happens.Anytime anyone mentions comparative nutritional value on here, they are "woo"ed to death. Even something as mild as stating that whole grain breads and brown rice are healthier than white bread and white rice provokes a chorus of disagreement.
I mention stuff like this without getting "wooed to death."
Fact is that the nutritional difference between brown and white rice isn't that great (and neither is all that high in nutrients) - log at a place like Cron and see. So if there's a huge taste difference for you (there's not for me, I like them equally and can take or leave all rice), you get better bang for your nutrition buck by eating somewhat less rice and more of the other foods eaten with the rice -- add in lots of vegetables, some lower fat protein.
A similar example: whole grain pasta isn't much better than white (and both are fine). If you were to say brown is always better and so pick a 800 cal brown pasta based carbonara with no vegetables, while someone else picked a 450 cal white pasta based meal with shrimp and lots and lots of vegetables, the latter is unquestionably a better choice (unless you needed more cals and were getting lots of vegetables in other meals).
So the point usually is that nutrition is more about what you eat over the day, and requires a much broader understanding than "white is always bad, brown is always good."
I tend to choose whole grain when possible (I think it makes a bigger difference with bread but don't really eat bread much), but it's not something people need to make themselves unhappy over if they prefer white.And MFP is one of the only sites I know of (outside of the Coca Cola website, maybe) where the SCIENTIFICALLY AGREED-UPON FACT that sugar is actually bad for you is treated as some sort of radical opinion. Science is real, people. No matter how many "woos" you give it.
(1) Sugar is NOT bad for you. Many foods with sugar like fruit and dairy and vegetables are extremely nutritious and often people suggest the sugar is a problem when it is not.
(2) Excessive ADDED sugar is a problem because (as the WHO site explains) it typically goes along with excessive CALORIES or a nutrient-poor diet. Rather than worry about sugar in isolation, why not watch your diet, eat appropriate calories, and get enough protein and fiber and micronutrients, and healthy fats (i.e., omega 3). If you do, I would be surprised if you are consuming excessive sugar, unless you are EXTREMELY active and not dieting.
The problem is that some people buy into false ideas that all sugar = bad or that you can't lose weight if you don't cut out all foods with added sugar, and often that makes weight loss harder and makes people overly stressed about everything.
It is tiresome and insulting and disingenuous to twist advice like that I just gave above into a claim that I was saying that nutrition does not matter and eating a diet of only candy bars is cool. Can you understand that?
And I specifically addressed the Theresa Fung study in another thread and I notice that you did not respond there. (And again that study is only about ADDED sugar and has some obvious problems.)33 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Posters saying to not be concerned about intake of added sugars even though the WHO, USDA, American Heart Association etc all say their intake should be limited.
It might be that's because we are on a weight loss/gain site not a diabetes prevention one. And a lot of question will be phrased like "can I eat this ans still lose weight ?". If someone is obese, I think them losing weight is more critical than how much sugar they eat in order of priority.
But yeah I agree with you, and it should always be contextual to the question asked.
Actually the USDA/WHO/AHA guidelines on sugar don't really call out diabetes prevention and don't say these recommendations aren't just for those overweight/obese.
Is losing weigh important of course. These organization's recommendations based on the research say that consuming fewer added sugars is a big bang for the buck way to get there for the general population.
USDA
What’s the Problem with Added Sugars?
Eating and drinking too many foods and beverages with added sugars makes
it difficult to achieve a healthy eating pattern without taking in too many
calories. Added sugars contribute calories, but no essential nutrients.
https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/resources/DGA_Cut-Down-On-Added-Sugars.pdf
WHO
The recommendations are based on analysis of the latest scientific evidence. This evidence shows, first, that adults who consume less sugars have lower body weight and, second, that increasing the amount of sugars in the diet is associated with a weight increase.
https://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2015/sugar-guideline/en/
The best researchers in the world on this topic are in agreement that added sugars should be significantly reduced from current levels of consumption. Not really sure who else you want to be listening to on this topic.
Exactly. Both orgs recommend limiting added sugars because they tend to cause people to eat too many calories. If you are already controlling your calories on MFP, you probably don't have to worry about watching your sugar intake. And if you are watching your macros and making sure you're getting enough protein and fat, it would be incredibly difficult to do that and still end up with too much added sugar.
Once someone has their calories, protein, fat, and fiber down, if they want to play with another variable, go for it and watch your "added sugar". But I'd bet that if they have everything else down, their added sugar isn't even close to being a problem.
Yes! When I started logging my food and counting calories, it became very apparent where the extra calories were coming from. I knew I couldn't cut out things like protein, high-quality carbs, & healthy fats or I would be gnawing my arm off (and had I not known that, I would have found out real quick), so I looked at things like sugary drinks, candy, & white bread. The nutritional profile of my diet improved greatly just by concentrating on my calories & satiety. It can happen naturally without a person being told you "have" to eat this way, which of course, people just love
Yes -- most people use common sense like this. The people who assume others will not make me wonder about whether they struggled with common sense.11 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Posters saying to not be concerned about intake of added sugars even though the WHO, USDA, American Heart Association etc all say their intake should be limited.
It might be that's because we are on a weight loss/gain site not a diabetes prevention one. And a lot of question will be phrased like "can I eat this ans still lose weight ?". If someone is obese, I think them losing weight is more critical than how much sugar they eat in order of priority.
But yeah I agree with you, and it should always be contextual to the question asked.
Actually the USDA/WHO/AHA guidelines on sugar don't really call out diabetes prevention and don't say these recommendations aren't just for those overweight/obese.
Is losing weigh important of course. These organization's recommendations based on the research say that consuming fewer added sugars is a big bang for the buck way to get there for the general population.
USDA
What’s the Problem with Added Sugars?
Eating and drinking too many foods and beverages with added sugars makes
it difficult to achieve a healthy eating pattern without taking in too many
calories. Added sugars contribute calories, but no essential nutrients.
https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/resources/DGA_Cut-Down-On-Added-Sugars.pdf
WHO
The recommendations are based on analysis of the latest scientific evidence. This evidence shows, first, that adults who consume less sugars have lower body weight and, second, that increasing the amount of sugars in the diet is associated with a weight increase.
https://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2015/sugar-guideline/en/
The best researchers in the world on this topic are in agreement that added sugars should be significantly reduced from current levels of consumption. Not really sure who else you want to be listening to on this topic.
Exactly. Both orgs recommend limiting added sugars because they tend to cause people to eat too many calories. If you are already controlling your calories on MFP, you probably don't have to worry about watching your sugar intake. And if you are watching your macros and making sure you're getting enough protein and fat, it would be incredibly difficult to do that and still end up with too much added sugar.
Once someone has their calories, protein, fat, and fiber down, if they want to play with another variable, go for it and watch your "added sugar". But I'd bet that if they have everything else down, their added sugar isn't even close to being a problem.
Yes! When I started logging my food and counting calories, it became very apparent where the extra calories were coming from. I knew I couldn't cut out things like protein, high-quality carbs, & healthy fats or I would be gnawing my arm off (and had I not known that, I would have found out real quick), so I looked at things like sugary drinks, candy, & white bread. The nutritional profile of my diet improved greatly just by concentrating on my calories & satiety. It can happen naturally without a person being told you "have" to eat this way, which of course, people just love
Yes -- most people use common sense like this. The people who assume others will not make me wonder about whether they struggled with common sense.
Based on what people are sharing here, I think it's incredibly common for people to begin logging, notice trends in where their calories are going, and make a series of (usually gradual) small changes to make their calories go "further." What people notice and want to cut is going to be very reliant on previous diet pattern and individual tastes. For me, the stuff like rice, candy, juice, and oil added during cooking jumped out because the number of calories just wasn't worth it. And as I noticed that many of my favorite vegetables were relatively low calorie, I began eating much more of those.
The information is right there in front of us once we begin logging. In my years of helping people here and chatting with them, I think it's relatively rare that people are adding things like soda or candy to their diet because they've decided calories are the only thing that matters. Even if someone didn't care at all about nutrition, they'd probably be so hungry!
16 -
I can't believe *we* even bother arguing with people who do this context-ignoring thing that Salixiana
did.
Science is real, so is reading comprehension.20 -
cmriverside wrote: »I can't believe *we* even bother arguing with people who do this context-ignoring thing that Salixiana
did.
Science is real, so is reading comprehension.
Personally, I'm just always thinking about the lurkers 11 -
cmriverside wrote: »I can't believe *we* even bother arguing with people who do this context-ignoring thing that Salixiana
did.
Science is real, so is reading comprehension.
Personally, I'm just always thinking about the lurkers
Yeah, I get that.
I just find it amusing.4 -
I have a very hard time with the fact that MFP disregards nutrition other than general categories of carbs, protein and fat, when discussing weight loss. It's like this site views weight loss as if it were totally disconnected from essential human health.
It's true that all you need in order to lose weight is a calorie deficit. But that doesn't mean that you can afford to disregard actual nutrition. Sure, you could lose weight by eating nothing but candy bars, as long as you kept under your calorie goal. And you could probably hit all your MFP macros by adding a protein shake or two to that candy bar diet. But your body as a whole organism would not thrive.
"About 85% of Americans do not consume the US Food and Drug Administration’s recommended daily intakes of the most important vitamins and minerals necessary for proper physical and mental development."
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/feb/10/nutrition-hunger-food-children-vitamins-us
"Malnutrition is thought of as a distant issue, but this condition often goes hand-in-hand with eight chronic diseases, and it costs the U.S. $15.5 billion annually in direct costs."
http://www.nutritionnews.abbott/nutrition-as-medicine/malnutrition-in-america.html
Anytime anyone mentions comparative nutritional value on here, they are "woo"ed to death. Even something as mild as stating that whole grain breads and brown rice are healthier than white bread and white rice provokes a chorus of disagreement. As if the key nutrients in complex carbohydrates and the outer germ and bran of grains (fiber, B vitamins, iron, folate, selenium, potassium and magnesium) are somehow meaningless. As if this advice from Mayo Clinic, based on accepted science, doesn't count:
"Whole grains are also linked to a lower risk of heart disease, diabetes, certain cancers and other health problems."
And MFP is one of the only sites I know of (outside of the Coca Cola website, maybe) where the SCIENTIFICALLY AGREED-UPON FACT that sugar is actually bad for you is treated as some sort of radical opinion. Science is real, people. No matter how many "woos" you give it.
It is not only people who have diabetes who have to think about sugar. To quote just one of the uniform knowledgeable sources:
“Regardless of their Healthy Eating Index scores, people who ate more sugar still had higher cardiovascular mortality,” says Dr. Teresa Fung, adjunct professor of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/eating-too-much-added-sugar-increases-the-risk-of-dying-with-heart-disease-201402067021
It's like most people on MFP are so fixated on losing weight that they want to join together in an aggressive, in-your-face denial of nutritional facts. "There are no bad foods," is like biblical scripture here.
If you fill up your calorie allotment with added sugars and low-nutrient, highly processed junk food and fast food, you are not going to be healthy -- even if you are losing weight. There is a reason to eat a wide variety of nutrient dense foods and minimize added sugars. Human beings need the wide range of micronutrients and trace elements that occur in fresh produce, good quality proteins, legumes, etc.
Science is real.- This forum isn't "MFP". It's a bunch of MFP users talking to each other.
- You'd be hard pressed to find a nutrition scientist or RD who would disagree that the totality of a person's diet is far more important than micromanaging individual foods.
- The statistics you quoted about RDA and malnutrition are no doubt influenced by the fact that most Americans do not keep a food diary and have no conscious idea what they're eating. I'd bet those statistics if applied just to folks tracking their intake (which is the audience here) would be dramatically different.
- If you look at the nutritional differences between different rices and breads, you will find that a)the differences are minor, and b)there are some seemingly "white" grains that are actually whole grains. We are big proponents here of reading the nutrition info, whether you've seen us doing that or not.
- Literally no one here ever has told someone it's "healthy" to eat candy all day. They might have said you can lose weight eating nothing but candy all day, but you'd probably be hungry and it wouldn't be the healthiest diet.
As in my previous reply to another post, someone who is monitoring their calories and keeping an eye on their macros will almost definitely not be eating too much sugar or junk. The numbers just don't work otherwise. Why tell an overwhelmed new person to focus on something that is almost definitely going to take care of itself anyway?19 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Posters saying to not be concerned about intake of added sugars even though the WHO, USDA, American Heart Association etc all say their intake should be limited.
It might be that's because we are on a weight loss/gain site not a diabetes prevention one. And a lot of question will be phrased like "can I eat this ans still lose weight ?". If someone is obese, I think them losing weight is more critical than how much sugar they eat in order of priority.
But yeah I agree with you, and it should always be contextual to the question asked.
Actually the USDA/WHO/AHA guidelines on sugar don't really call out diabetes prevention and don't say these recommendations aren't just for those overweight/obese.
Is losing weigh important of course. These organization's recommendations based on the research say that consuming fewer added sugars is a big bang for the buck way to get there for the general population.
USDA
What’s the Problem with Added Sugars?
Eating and drinking too many foods and beverages with added sugars makes
it difficult to achieve a healthy eating pattern without taking in too many
calories. Added sugars contribute calories, but no essential nutrients.
https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/resources/DGA_Cut-Down-On-Added-Sugars.pdf
WHO
The recommendations are based on analysis of the latest scientific evidence. This evidence shows, first, that adults who consume less sugars have lower body weight and, second, that increasing the amount of sugars in the diet is associated with a weight increase.
https://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2015/sugar-guideline/en/
The best researchers in the world on this topic are in agreement that added sugars should be significantly reduced from current levels of consumption. Not really sure who else you want to be listening to on this topic.
Exactly. Both orgs recommend limiting added sugars because they tend to cause people to eat too many calories. If you are already controlling your calories on MFP, you probably don't have to worry about watching your sugar intake. And if you are watching your macros and making sure you're getting enough protein and fat, it would be incredibly difficult to do that and still end up with too much added sugar.
Once someone has their calories, protein, fat, and fiber down, if they want to play with another variable, go for it and watch your "added sugar". But I'd bet that if they have everything else down, their added sugar isn't even close to being a problem.
Yes! When I started logging my food and counting calories, it became very apparent where the extra calories were coming from. I knew I couldn't cut out things like protein, high-quality carbs, & healthy fats or I would be gnawing my arm off (and had I not known that, I would have found out real quick), so I looked at things like sugary drinks, candy, & white bread. The nutritional profile of my diet improved greatly just by concentrating on my calories & satiety. It can happen naturally without a person being told you "have" to eat this way, which of course, people just love
Yes -- most people use common sense like this. The people who assume others will not make me wonder about whether they struggled with common sense.
While I agree with the sentiment here, I think it's a slippery slope on a forum loaded with people with poor relationships with food, emotional attachments to both food and scale weight (which usually conflict with each other), etc. What some people think is common isn't always so common. I know I've been the strawman a time or two.8 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Posters saying to not be concerned about intake of added sugars even though the WHO, USDA, American Heart Association etc all say their intake should be limited.
It might be that's because we are on a weight loss/gain site not a diabetes prevention one. And a lot of question will be phrased like "can I eat this ans still lose weight ?". If someone is obese, I think them losing weight is more critical than how much sugar they eat in order of priority.
But yeah I agree with you, and it should always be contextual to the question asked.
Actually the USDA/WHO/AHA guidelines on sugar don't really call out diabetes prevention and don't say these recommendations aren't just for those overweight/obese.
Is losing weigh important of course. These organization's recommendations based on the research say that consuming fewer added sugars is a big bang for the buck way to get there for the general population.
USDA
What’s the Problem with Added Sugars?
Eating and drinking too many foods and beverages with added sugars makes
it difficult to achieve a healthy eating pattern without taking in too many
calories. Added sugars contribute calories, but no essential nutrients.
https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/resources/DGA_Cut-Down-On-Added-Sugars.pdf
WHO
The recommendations are based on analysis of the latest scientific evidence. This evidence shows, first, that adults who consume less sugars have lower body weight and, second, that increasing the amount of sugars in the diet is associated with a weight increase.
https://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2015/sugar-guideline/en/
The best researchers in the world on this topic are in agreement that added sugars should be significantly reduced from current levels of consumption. Not really sure who else you want to be listening to on this topic.
Exactly. Both orgs recommend limiting added sugars because they tend to cause people to eat too many calories. If you are already controlling your calories on MFP, you probably don't have to worry about watching your sugar intake. And if you are watching your macros and making sure you're getting enough protein and fat, it would be incredibly difficult to do that and still end up with too much added sugar.
Once someone has their calories, protein, fat, and fiber down, if they want to play with another variable, go for it and watch your "added sugar". But I'd bet that if they have everything else down, their added sugar isn't even close to being a problem.
Your response is exactly what my original disagreement was. The USDA/WHO/AHA guidelines say people should limit added sugar not "people except those that track on MFP and think they are doing okay should limit added sugar".
You mention watching macros, the carbs number on MFP doesn't tell one if their carb intake is made up of nutrient dense carbs or soda12 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Posters saying to not be concerned about intake of added sugars even though the WHO, USDA, American Heart Association etc all say their intake should be limited.
It might be that's because we are on a weight loss/gain site not a diabetes prevention one. And a lot of question will be phrased like "can I eat this ans still lose weight ?". If someone is obese, I think them losing weight is more critical than how much sugar they eat in order of priority.
But yeah I agree with you, and it should always be contextual to the question asked.
Actually the USDA/WHO/AHA guidelines on sugar don't really call out diabetes prevention and don't say these recommendations aren't just for those overweight/obese.
Is losing weigh important of course. These organization's recommendations based on the research say that consuming fewer added sugars is a big bang for the buck way to get there for the general population.
USDA
What’s the Problem with Added Sugars?
Eating and drinking too many foods and beverages with added sugars makes
it difficult to achieve a healthy eating pattern without taking in too many
calories. Added sugars contribute calories, but no essential nutrients.
https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/resources/DGA_Cut-Down-On-Added-Sugars.pdf
WHO
The recommendations are based on analysis of the latest scientific evidence. This evidence shows, first, that adults who consume less sugars have lower body weight and, second, that increasing the amount of sugars in the diet is associated with a weight increase.
https://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2015/sugar-guideline/en/
The best researchers in the world on this topic are in agreement that added sugars should be significantly reduced from current levels of consumption. Not really sure who else you want to be listening to on this topic.
Exactly. Both orgs recommend limiting added sugars because they tend to cause people to eat too many calories. If you are already controlling your calories on MFP, you probably don't have to worry about watching your sugar intake. And if you are watching your macros and making sure you're getting enough protein and fat, it would be incredibly difficult to do that and still end up with too much added sugar.
Once someone has their calories, protein, fat, and fiber down, if they want to play with another variable, go for it and watch your "added sugar". But I'd bet that if they have everything else down, their added sugar isn't even close to being a problem.
Your response is exactly what my original disagreement was. The USDA/WHO/AHA guidelines say people should limit added sugar not "people except those that track on MFP and think they are doing okay should limit added sugar".
You mention watching macros, the carbs number on MFP doesn't tell one if their carb intake is made up of nutrient dense carbs or soda
That's not what I was saying. The guidelines were put out there as a good way of reducing calories/weight. My point is that it's 6 of 1, half dozen of the other.
If person A focuses on avoiding added sugar and ignores calories, they will probably end up reducing their calorie intake without realizing it (though there is no guarantee).
If person B focuses on reducing calorie consumption and ignores sugar, they will probably end up with a healthy level of added sugar without realizing it (though there is no guarantee).
Maybe I give people too much credit, but if person B is drinking a good amount of soda and limiting their calories overall, they will end up hungry and either figure it out for themselves or come here asking about it. We see posts all the time from people who drink too much soda and are looking for tips on how to stop. And we give them tips - diet soda, black coffee, carry a water bottle, ween yourself down, etc. They want to stop due to the calories, but the net effect will be less sugar.
And I can imagine it's possible to eat a low added sugar diet and still not eat a nutritionally complete diet, I'm thinking of keto/low carb dieters who happen to eat a lot of convenience "low carb" foods rather than whole foods. Sugar level is not inherently proportional to nutrition density.
There is no confirmed "health" benefit to reducing added sugar (according to these major health organizations) beyond controlling calorie intake/weight. So if you are already controlling your calorie intake and weight, there is nothing in these guidelines (at least as far as I'm seeing) to suggest focusing on added sugar is necessary.
ETA: To be clear, I'm not saying (and I don't think anyone here is really saying) that a diet loaded with added sugar is healthy. We're saying that any attempt to get your calories in line will naturally over time lead to a healthy level of added sugar.16 -
cmriverside wrote: »I can't believe *we* even bother arguing with people who do this context-ignoring thing that Salixiana
did.
Science is real, so is reading comprehension.
Personally, I'm just always thinking about the lurkers
Yep, me too.3 -
I have a very hard time with the fact that MFP disregards nutrition other than general categories of carbs, protein and fat, when discussing weight loss. It's like this site views weight loss as if it were totally disconnected from essential human health.
It's true that all you need in order to lose weight is a calorie deficit. But that doesn't mean that you can afford to disregard actual nutrition. Sure, you could lose weight by eating nothing but candy bars, as long as you kept under your calorie goal. And you could probably hit all your MFP macros by adding a protein shake or two to that candy bar diet. But your body as a whole organism would not thrive.
"About 85% of Americans do not consume the US Food and Drug Administration’s recommended daily intakes of the most important vitamins and minerals necessary for proper physical and mental development."
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/feb/10/nutrition-hunger-food-children-vitamins-us
"Malnutrition is thought of as a distant issue, but this condition often goes hand-in-hand with eight chronic diseases, and it costs the U.S. $15.5 billion annually in direct costs."
http://www.nutritionnews.abbott/nutrition-as-medicine/malnutrition-in-america.html
Anytime anyone mentions comparative nutritional value on here, they are "woo"ed to death. Even something as mild as stating that whole grain breads and brown rice are healthier than white bread and white rice provokes a chorus of disagreement. As if the key nutrients in complex carbohydrates and the outer germ and bran of grains (fiber, B vitamins, iron, folate, selenium, potassium and magnesium) are somehow meaningless. As if this advice from Mayo Clinic, based on accepted science, doesn't count:
"Whole grains are also linked to a lower risk of heart disease, diabetes, certain cancers and other health problems."
And MFP is one of the only sites I know of (outside of the Coca Cola website, maybe) where the SCIENTIFICALLY AGREED-UPON FACT that sugar is actually bad for you is treated as some sort of radical opinion. Science is real, people. No matter how many "woos" you give it.
It is not only people who have diabetes who have to think about sugar. To quote just one of the uniform knowledgeable sources:
“Regardless of their Healthy Eating Index scores, people who ate more sugar still had higher cardiovascular mortality,” says Dr. Teresa Fung, adjunct professor of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/eating-too-much-added-sugar-increases-the-risk-of-dying-with-heart-disease-201402067021
It's like most people on MFP are so fixated on losing weight that they want to join together in an aggressive, in-your-face denial of nutritional facts. "There are no bad foods," is like biblical scripture here.
If you fill up your calorie allotment with added sugars and low-nutrient, highly processed junk food and fast food, you are not going to be healthy -- even if you are losing weight. There is a reason to eat a wide variety of nutrient dense foods and minimize added sugars. Human beings need the wide range of micronutrients and trace elements that occur in fresh produce, good quality proteins, legumes, etc.
Science is real.- This forum isn't "MFP". It's a bunch of MFP users talking to each other.
- You'd be hard pressed to find a nutrition scientist or RD who would disagree that the totality of a person's diet is far more important than micromanaging individual foods.
- The statistics you quoted about RDA and malnutrition are no doubt influenced by the fact that most Americans do not keep a food diary and have no conscious idea what they're eating. I'd bet those statistics if applied just to folks tracking their intake (which is the audience here) would be dramatically different.
- If you look at the nutritional differences between different rices and breads, you will find that a)the differences are minor, and b)there are some seemingly "white" grains that are actually whole grains. We are big proponents here of reading the nutrition info, whether you've seen us doing that or not.
- Literally no one here ever has told someone it's "healthy" to eat candy all day. They might have said you can lose weight eating nothing but candy all day, but you'd probably be hungry and it wouldn't be the healthiest diet.
As in my previous reply to another post, someone who is monitoring their calories and keeping an eye on their macros will almost definitely not be eating too much sugar or junk. The numbers just don't work otherwise. Why tell an overwhelmed new person to focus on something that is almost definitely going to take care of itself anyway?
Exactly. I would bet that for the vast majority of people who are logging to consistently meet a calorie goal and meet their nutritional needs, added sugar is going to fall into line without much conscious effort to limit it. You just don't have room to get 25% of your calories from sugar when you're also hitting your calorie goal, avoiding hunger, and getting sufficient protein and fat.12 -
janejellyroll wrote: »I have a very hard time with the fact that MFP disregards nutrition other than general categories of carbs, protein and fat, when discussing weight loss. It's like this site views weight loss as if it were totally disconnected from essential human health.
It's true that all you need in order to lose weight is a calorie deficit. But that doesn't mean that you can afford to disregard actual nutrition. Sure, you could lose weight by eating nothing but candy bars, as long as you kept under your calorie goal. And you could probably hit all your MFP macros by adding a protein shake or two to that candy bar diet. But your body as a whole organism would not thrive.
"About 85% of Americans do not consume the US Food and Drug Administration’s recommended daily intakes of the most important vitamins and minerals necessary for proper physical and mental development."
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/feb/10/nutrition-hunger-food-children-vitamins-us
"Malnutrition is thought of as a distant issue, but this condition often goes hand-in-hand with eight chronic diseases, and it costs the U.S. $15.5 billion annually in direct costs."
http://www.nutritionnews.abbott/nutrition-as-medicine/malnutrition-in-america.html
Anytime anyone mentions comparative nutritional value on here, they are "woo"ed to death. Even something as mild as stating that whole grain breads and brown rice are healthier than white bread and white rice provokes a chorus of disagreement. As if the key nutrients in complex carbohydrates and the outer germ and bran of grains (fiber, B vitamins, iron, folate, selenium, potassium and magnesium) are somehow meaningless. As if this advice from Mayo Clinic, based on accepted science, doesn't count:
"Whole grains are also linked to a lower risk of heart disease, diabetes, certain cancers and other health problems."
And MFP is one of the only sites I know of (outside of the Coca Cola website, maybe) where the SCIENTIFICALLY AGREED-UPON FACT that sugar is actually bad for you is treated as some sort of radical opinion. Science is real, people. No matter how many "woos" you give it.
It is not only people who have diabetes who have to think about sugar. To quote just one of the uniform knowledgeable sources:
“Regardless of their Healthy Eating Index scores, people who ate more sugar still had higher cardiovascular mortality,” says Dr. Teresa Fung, adjunct professor of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/eating-too-much-added-sugar-increases-the-risk-of-dying-with-heart-disease-201402067021
It's like most people on MFP are so fixated on losing weight that they want to join together in an aggressive, in-your-face denial of nutritional facts. "There are no bad foods," is like biblical scripture here.
If you fill up your calorie allotment with added sugars and low-nutrient, highly processed junk food and fast food, you are not going to be healthy -- even if you are losing weight. There is a reason to eat a wide variety of nutrient dense foods and minimize added sugars. Human beings need the wide range of micronutrients and trace elements that occur in fresh produce, good quality proteins, legumes, etc.
Science is real.- This forum isn't "MFP". It's a bunch of MFP users talking to each other.
- You'd be hard pressed to find a nutrition scientist or RD who would disagree that the totality of a person's diet is far more important than micromanaging individual foods.
- The statistics you quoted about RDA and malnutrition are no doubt influenced by the fact that most Americans do not keep a food diary and have no conscious idea what they're eating. I'd bet those statistics if applied just to folks tracking their intake (which is the audience here) would be dramatically different.
- If you look at the nutritional differences between different rices and breads, you will find that a)the differences are minor, and b)there are some seemingly "white" grains that are actually whole grains. We are big proponents here of reading the nutrition info, whether you've seen us doing that or not.
- Literally no one here ever has told someone it's "healthy" to eat candy all day. They might have said you can lose weight eating nothing but candy all day, but you'd probably be hungry and it wouldn't be the healthiest diet.
As in my previous reply to another post, someone who is monitoring their calories and keeping an eye on their macros will almost definitely not be eating too much sugar or junk. The numbers just don't work otherwise. Why tell an overwhelmed new person to focus on something that is almost definitely going to take care of itself anyway?
Exactly. I would bet that for the vast majority of people who are logging to consistently meet a calorie goal and meet their nutritional needs, added sugar is going to fall into line without much conscious effort to limit it. You just don't have room to get 25% of your calories from sugar when you're also hitting your calorie goal, avoiding hunger, and getting sufficient protein and fat.
Yep, when I joined, I knew I was eating more sugary foods than I should. But when I started logging, I just focused on calories. Then I realized protein and fiber did the trick for keeping me full so I added a focus on that. Then when we started getting a lot of posts about sugar,sugar,sugar I looked back at my diary and was rarely going over the MFP default sugar goal, and the days I did were often because of extra fruit or dairy. I simply can't stay under my calorie goal if I eat too many sweets.7 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Posters saying to not be concerned about intake of added sugars even though the WHO, USDA, American Heart Association etc all say their intake should be limited.
It might be that's because we are on a weight loss/gain site not a diabetes prevention one. And a lot of question will be phrased like "can I eat this ans still lose weight ?". If someone is obese, I think them losing weight is more critical than how much sugar they eat in order of priority.
But yeah I agree with you, and it should always be contextual to the question asked.
Actually the USDA/WHO/AHA guidelines on sugar don't really call out diabetes prevention and don't say these recommendations aren't just for those overweight/obese.
Is losing weigh important of course. These organization's recommendations based on the research say that consuming fewer added sugars is a big bang for the buck way to get there for the general population.
USDA
What’s the Problem with Added Sugars?
Eating and drinking too many foods and beverages with added sugars makes
it difficult to achieve a healthy eating pattern without taking in too many
calories. Added sugars contribute calories, but no essential nutrients.
https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/resources/DGA_Cut-Down-On-Added-Sugars.pdf
WHO
The recommendations are based on analysis of the latest scientific evidence. This evidence shows, first, that adults who consume less sugars have lower body weight and, second, that increasing the amount of sugars in the diet is associated with a weight increase.
https://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2015/sugar-guideline/en/
The best researchers in the world on this topic are in agreement that added sugars should be significantly reduced from current levels of consumption. Not really sure who else you want to be listening to on this topic.
Exactly. Both orgs recommend limiting added sugars because they tend to cause people to eat too many calories. If you are already controlling your calories on MFP, you probably don't have to worry about watching your sugar intake. And if you are watching your macros and making sure you're getting enough protein and fat, it would be incredibly difficult to do that and still end up with too much added sugar.
Once someone has their calories, protein, fat, and fiber down, if they want to play with another variable, go for it and watch your "added sugar". But I'd bet that if they have everything else down, their added sugar isn't even close to being a problem.
Yes! When I started logging my food and counting calories, it became very apparent where the extra calories were coming from. I knew I couldn't cut out things like protein, high-quality carbs, & healthy fats or I would be gnawing my arm off (and had I not known that, I would have found out real quick), so I looked at things like sugary drinks, candy, & white bread. The nutritional profile of my diet improved greatly just by concentrating on my calories & satiety. It can happen naturally without a person being told you "have" to eat this way, which of course, people just love
Yes -- most people use common sense like this. The people who assume others will not make me wonder about whether they struggled with common sense.
While I agree with the sentiment here, I think it's a slippery slope on a forum loaded with people with poor relationships with food, emotional attachments to both food and scale weight (which usually conflict with each other), etc. What some people think is common isn't always so common. I know I've been the strawman a time or two.
If you log your food, you can see what you are spending calories on. Common sense would say to cut back on things that are less filling and don't help with nutritional goals, which does not mean cut out entirely if you still enjoy those foods. I know I saw immediately just by writing down what I was eating in a day ways that I could cut calories without even noticing (decrease the amounts of oil I was adding, use less pasta, more vegetables, but eat just as much food), and I also saw that I was eating just because on some days, and for high cal/lower nutrient foods I started questioning whether they were really worth it. Some were, some weren't, and portions became smaller. I also saw that my meals were pretty healthful and balanced but that I did a bunch of "it's in the breakroom and I'm having a bad day" kind of eating of foods that I don't even really like all that much, so I decided not to snack.
It is true that some people really don't want to adjust their eating or are convinced they hate vegetables or foods with protein or who knows. I think most probably will over time if they are successful. But my main point is that they don't choose not to, to survive on the strawman of Coke, fast food burgers, fries, and donuts, because they are unaware that's not the healthiest choice, that eating 25%+ of their diet from added sugar is a bad idea, that not eating a more nutrient-rich diet overall (and very few veg!) is unhealthy. Everyone knows what is basically healthy and basically not. Me or you lecturing more than we do about nutrition when someone asks "can I eat what I want and lose" is not going to make a difference, so someone else insisting that we say that nutrition does not matter is offensive and annoying.7 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Posters saying to not be concerned about intake of added sugars even though the WHO, USDA, American Heart Association etc all say their intake should be limited.
It might be that's because we are on a weight loss/gain site not a diabetes prevention one. And a lot of question will be phrased like "can I eat this ans still lose weight ?". If someone is obese, I think them losing weight is more critical than how much sugar they eat in order of priority.
But yeah I agree with you, and it should always be contextual to the question asked.
Actually the USDA/WHO/AHA guidelines on sugar don't really call out diabetes prevention and don't say these recommendations aren't just for those overweight/obese.
Is losing weigh important of course. These organization's recommendations based on the research say that consuming fewer added sugars is a big bang for the buck way to get there for the general population.
USDA
What’s the Problem with Added Sugars?
Eating and drinking too many foods and beverages with added sugars makes
it difficult to achieve a healthy eating pattern without taking in too many
calories. Added sugars contribute calories, but no essential nutrients.
https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/resources/DGA_Cut-Down-On-Added-Sugars.pdf
WHO
The recommendations are based on analysis of the latest scientific evidence. This evidence shows, first, that adults who consume less sugars have lower body weight and, second, that increasing the amount of sugars in the diet is associated with a weight increase.
https://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2015/sugar-guideline/en/
The best researchers in the world on this topic are in agreement that added sugars should be significantly reduced from current levels of consumption. Not really sure who else you want to be listening to on this topic.
Exactly. Both orgs recommend limiting added sugars because they tend to cause people to eat too many calories. If you are already controlling your calories on MFP, you probably don't have to worry about watching your sugar intake. And if you are watching your macros and making sure you're getting enough protein and fat, it would be incredibly difficult to do that and still end up with too much added sugar.
Once someone has their calories, protein, fat, and fiber down, if they want to play with another variable, go for it and watch your "added sugar". But I'd bet that if they have everything else down, their added sugar isn't even close to being a problem.
Your response is exactly what my original disagreement was. The USDA/WHO/AHA guidelines say people should limit added sugar not "people except those that track on MFP and think they are doing okay should limit added sugar".
You mention watching macros, the carbs number on MFP doesn't tell one if their carb intake is made up of nutrient dense carbs or soda
If you log your diet or otherwise pay attention, it is very easy to tell if you are eating an overall balance, healthy, nutrient-rich diet WITHOUT specifically counting added sugars.
I look at added sugar occasionally (I log at Cron and it's easy for me since I do not really eat much packaged foods and I'm quite aware of what's in the packaged foods I eat), and I know what I consume, and there were never any surprises.
What I sometimes suggest that people do is look at fiber (I am assuming from grains and whole foods, not Quest bars), and overall carbs and sugar and see if there are any surprises. If I was getting lots of sugar and saw it was mostly coming from fruit and dairy plus some veg and starches (like sweet potatoes), eh. If I saw there was a lot more in sauces or other packaged foods than expected, I might look into it (were it a surprise). If I saw I was eating lots of sweets or soda (which is HARDLY difficult to realize), I personally would see that as something to cut back on if my overall diet was suffering.
Your citing of stats for the population as a whole when we are talking about people who monitor their diets and SAY to look at overall nutrition is really a strawman.9 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Posters saying to not be concerned about intake of added sugars even though the WHO, USDA, American Heart Association etc all say their intake should be limited.
It might be that's because we are on a weight loss/gain site not a diabetes prevention one. And a lot of question will be phrased like "can I eat this ans still lose weight ?". If someone is obese, I think them losing weight is more critical than how much sugar they eat in order of priority.
But yeah I agree with you, and it should always be contextual to the question asked.
Actually the USDA/WHO/AHA guidelines on sugar don't really call out diabetes prevention and don't say these recommendations aren't just for those overweight/obese.
Is losing weigh important of course. These organization's recommendations based on the research say that consuming fewer added sugars is a big bang for the buck way to get there for the general population.
USDA
What’s the Problem with Added Sugars?
Eating and drinking too many foods and beverages with added sugars makes
it difficult to achieve a healthy eating pattern without taking in too many
calories. Added sugars contribute calories, but no essential nutrients.
https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/resources/DGA_Cut-Down-On-Added-Sugars.pdf
WHO
The recommendations are based on analysis of the latest scientific evidence. This evidence shows, first, that adults who consume less sugars have lower body weight and, second, that increasing the amount of sugars in the diet is associated with a weight increase.
https://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2015/sugar-guideline/en/
The best researchers in the world on this topic are in agreement that added sugars should be significantly reduced from current levels of consumption. Not really sure who else you want to be listening to on this topic.
Exactly. Both orgs recommend limiting added sugars because they tend to cause people to eat too many calories. If you are already controlling your calories on MFP, you probably don't have to worry about watching your sugar intake. And if you are watching your macros and making sure you're getting enough protein and fat, it would be incredibly difficult to do that and still end up with too much added sugar.
Once someone has their calories, protein, fat, and fiber down, if they want to play with another variable, go for it and watch your "added sugar". But I'd bet that if they have everything else down, their added sugar isn't even close to being a problem.
Yes! When I started logging my food and counting calories, it became very apparent where the extra calories were coming from. I knew I couldn't cut out things like protein, high-quality carbs, & healthy fats or I would be gnawing my arm off (and had I not known that, I would have found out real quick), so I looked at things like sugary drinks, candy, & white bread. The nutritional profile of my diet improved greatly just by concentrating on my calories & satiety. It can happen naturally without a person being told you "have" to eat this way, which of course, people just love
Yes -- most people use common sense like this. The people who assume others will not make me wonder about whether they struggled with common sense.
While I agree with the sentiment here, I think it's a slippery slope on a forum loaded with people with poor relationships with food, emotional attachments to both food and scale weight (which usually conflict with each other), etc. What some people think is common isn't always so common. I know I've been the strawman a time or two.
If you log your food, you can see what you are spending calories on. Common sense would say to cut back on things that are less filling and don't help with nutritional goals, which does not mean cut out entirely if you still enjoy those foods. I know I saw immediately just by writing down what I was eating in a day ways that I could cut calories without even noticing (decrease the amounts of oil I was adding, use less pasta, more vegetables, but eat just as much food), and I also saw that I was eating just because on some days, and for high cal/lower nutrient foods I started questioning whether they were really worth it. Some were, some weren't, and portions became smaller. I also saw that my meals were pretty healthful and balanced but that I did a bunch of "it's in the breakroom and I'm having a bad day" kind of eating of foods that I don't even really like all that much, so I decided not to snack.
It is true that some people really don't want to adjust their eating or are convinced they hate vegetables or foods with protein or who knows. I think most probably will over time if they are successful. But my main point is that they don't choose not to, to survive on the strawman of Coke, fast food burgers, fries, and donuts, because they are unaware that's not the healthiest choice, that eating 25%+ of their diet from added sugar is a bad idea, that not eating a more nutrient-rich diet overall (and very few veg!) is unhealthy. Everyone knows what is basically healthy and basically not. Me or you lecturing more than we do about nutrition when someone asks "can I eat what I want and lose" is not going to make a difference, so someone else insisting that we say that nutrition does not matter is offensive and annoying.
There's a disconnect here for me, but I can't quite put my thumb on the what/where/why. This whole process is, for me, MUCH MUCH MUCH more emotional than you make it sound in your words. I'm not sure if I'm reacting to that (emotionally), or if I actually disagree with you.4 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Posters saying to not be concerned about intake of added sugars even though the WHO, USDA, American Heart Association etc all say their intake should be limited.
It might be that's because we are on a weight loss/gain site not a diabetes prevention one. And a lot of question will be phrased like "can I eat this ans still lose weight ?". If someone is obese, I think them losing weight is more critical than how much sugar they eat in order of priority.
But yeah I agree with you, and it should always be contextual to the question asked.
Actually the USDA/WHO/AHA guidelines on sugar don't really call out diabetes prevention and don't say these recommendations aren't just for those overweight/obese.
Is losing weigh important of course. These organization's recommendations based on the research say that consuming fewer added sugars is a big bang for the buck way to get there for the general population.
USDA
What’s the Problem with Added Sugars?
Eating and drinking too many foods and beverages with added sugars makes
it difficult to achieve a healthy eating pattern without taking in too many
calories. Added sugars contribute calories, but no essential nutrients.
https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/resources/DGA_Cut-Down-On-Added-Sugars.pdf
WHO
The recommendations are based on analysis of the latest scientific evidence. This evidence shows, first, that adults who consume less sugars have lower body weight and, second, that increasing the amount of sugars in the diet is associated with a weight increase.
https://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2015/sugar-guideline/en/
The best researchers in the world on this topic are in agreement that added sugars should be significantly reduced from current levels of consumption. Not really sure who else you want to be listening to on this topic.
Exactly. Both orgs recommend limiting added sugars because they tend to cause people to eat too many calories. If you are already controlling your calories on MFP, you probably don't have to worry about watching your sugar intake. And if you are watching your macros and making sure you're getting enough protein and fat, it would be incredibly difficult to do that and still end up with too much added sugar.
Once someone has their calories, protein, fat, and fiber down, if they want to play with another variable, go for it and watch your "added sugar". But I'd bet that if they have everything else down, their added sugar isn't even close to being a problem.
Yes! When I started logging my food and counting calories, it became very apparent where the extra calories were coming from. I knew I couldn't cut out things like protein, high-quality carbs, & healthy fats or I would be gnawing my arm off (and had I not known that, I would have found out real quick), so I looked at things like sugary drinks, candy, & white bread. The nutritional profile of my diet improved greatly just by concentrating on my calories & satiety. It can happen naturally without a person being told you "have" to eat this way, which of course, people just love
Yes -- most people use common sense like this. The people who assume others will not make me wonder about whether they struggled with common sense.
While I agree with the sentiment here, I think it's a slippery slope on a forum loaded with people with poor relationships with food, emotional attachments to both food and scale weight (which usually conflict with each other), etc. What some people think is common isn't always so common. I know I've been the strawman a time or two.
If you log your food, you can see what you are spending calories on. Common sense would say to cut back on things that are less filling and don't help with nutritional goals, which does not mean cut out entirely if you still enjoy those foods. I know I saw immediately just by writing down what I was eating in a day ways that I could cut calories without even noticing (decrease the amounts of oil I was adding, use less pasta, more vegetables, but eat just as much food), and I also saw that I was eating just because on some days, and for high cal/lower nutrient foods I started questioning whether they were really worth it. Some were, some weren't, and portions became smaller. I also saw that my meals were pretty healthful and balanced but that I did a bunch of "it's in the breakroom and I'm having a bad day" kind of eating of foods that I don't even really like all that much, so I decided not to snack.
It is true that some people really don't want to adjust their eating or are convinced they hate vegetables or foods with protein or who knows. I think most probably will over time if they are successful. But my main point is that they don't choose not to, to survive on the strawman of Coke, fast food burgers, fries, and donuts, because they are unaware that's not the healthiest choice, that eating 25%+ of their diet from added sugar is a bad idea, that not eating a more nutrient-rich diet overall (and very few veg!) is unhealthy. Everyone knows what is basically healthy and basically not. Me or you lecturing more than we do about nutrition when someone asks "can I eat what I want and lose" is not going to make a difference, so someone else insisting that we say that nutrition does not matter is offensive and annoying.
There's a disconnect here for me, but I can't quite put my thumb on the what/where/why. This whole process is, for me, MUCH MUCH MUCH more emotional than you make it sound in your words. I'm not sure if I'm reacting to that (emotionally), or if I actually disagree with you.
I think it's helpful to take the emotion out of it. I am an emotional eater, or have struggled with that, but looking at what I'm actually eating, understanding food and diet and nutrients and the like, logging, for me really is a very logical, reasonable process that helps me with the emotional eating tendencies too. None of the figuring out what I should eat/adjusting my diet stuff was emotional, and I don't really understand why it should be (but I accept that some people just won't want to -- my point is that's not because they are unaware their diet could be better or of what steps would make it that way). Packerjohn's strawman seems to be that people are eating insane amounts of candy and drinking enormous amounts of Coke or what not BECAUSE they don't know that's not a great idea, and that's because people on MFP say "eat a healthy diet that is calorie appropriate and watch what foods are satiating and not" and NOT "cut way back on sugar, period." I think that's totally untrue to reality -- if you are eating all that sugar and a non-nutritious diet, you know it and are choosing to (or perhaps are choosing that the tradeoff isn't worth it to you, or you are stuck in old habits that may be hard to break or take time -- point is it's not because you are unaware, once you look at it, of the problems with the diet).
If you can figure out why there's a disconnect here, I would like to understand your POV.9 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Posters saying to not be concerned about intake of added sugars even though the WHO, USDA, American Heart Association etc all say their intake should be limited.
It might be that's because we are on a weight loss/gain site not a diabetes prevention one. And a lot of question will be phrased like "can I eat this ans still lose weight ?". If someone is obese, I think them losing weight is more critical than how much sugar they eat in order of priority.
But yeah I agree with you, and it should always be contextual to the question asked.
Actually the USDA/WHO/AHA guidelines on sugar don't really call out diabetes prevention and don't say these recommendations aren't just for those overweight/obese.
Is losing weigh important of course. These organization's recommendations based on the research say that consuming fewer added sugars is a big bang for the buck way to get there for the general population.
USDA
What’s the Problem with Added Sugars?
Eating and drinking too many foods and beverages with added sugars makes
it difficult to achieve a healthy eating pattern without taking in too many
calories. Added sugars contribute calories, but no essential nutrients.
https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/resources/DGA_Cut-Down-On-Added-Sugars.pdf
WHO
The recommendations are based on analysis of the latest scientific evidence. This evidence shows, first, that adults who consume less sugars have lower body weight and, second, that increasing the amount of sugars in the diet is associated with a weight increase.
https://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2015/sugar-guideline/en/
The best researchers in the world on this topic are in agreement that added sugars should be significantly reduced from current levels of consumption. Not really sure who else you want to be listening to on this topic.
Exactly. Both orgs recommend limiting added sugars because they tend to cause people to eat too many calories. If you are already controlling your calories on MFP, you probably don't have to worry about watching your sugar intake. And if you are watching your macros and making sure you're getting enough protein and fat, it would be incredibly difficult to do that and still end up with too much added sugar.
Once someone has their calories, protein, fat, and fiber down, if they want to play with another variable, go for it and watch your "added sugar". But I'd bet that if they have everything else down, their added sugar isn't even close to being a problem.
Yes! When I started logging my food and counting calories, it became very apparent where the extra calories were coming from. I knew I couldn't cut out things like protein, high-quality carbs, & healthy fats or I would be gnawing my arm off (and had I not known that, I would have found out real quick), so I looked at things like sugary drinks, candy, & white bread. The nutritional profile of my diet improved greatly just by concentrating on my calories & satiety. It can happen naturally without a person being told you "have" to eat this way, which of course, people just love
Yes -- most people use common sense like this. The people who assume others will not make me wonder about whether they struggled with common sense.
While I agree with the sentiment here, I think it's a slippery slope on a forum loaded with people with poor relationships with food, emotional attachments to both food and scale weight (which usually conflict with each other), etc. What some people think is common isn't always so common. I know I've been the strawman a time or two.
If you log your food, you can see what you are spending calories on. Common sense would say to cut back on things that are less filling and don't help with nutritional goals, which does not mean cut out entirely if you still enjoy those foods. I know I saw immediately just by writing down what I was eating in a day ways that I could cut calories without even noticing (decrease the amounts of oil I was adding, use less pasta, more vegetables, but eat just as much food), and I also saw that I was eating just because on some days, and for high cal/lower nutrient foods I started questioning whether they were really worth it. Some were, some weren't, and portions became smaller. I also saw that my meals were pretty healthful and balanced but that I did a bunch of "it's in the breakroom and I'm having a bad day" kind of eating of foods that I don't even really like all that much, so I decided not to snack.
It is true that some people really don't want to adjust their eating or are convinced they hate vegetables or foods with protein or who knows. I think most probably will over time if they are successful. But my main point is that they don't choose not to, to survive on the strawman of Coke, fast food burgers, fries, and donuts, because they are unaware that's not the healthiest choice, that eating 25%+ of their diet from added sugar is a bad idea, that not eating a more nutrient-rich diet overall (and very few veg!) is unhealthy. Everyone knows what is basically healthy and basically not. Me or you lecturing more than we do about nutrition when someone asks "can I eat what I want and lose" is not going to make a difference, so someone else insisting that we say that nutrition does not matter is offensive and annoying.
There's a disconnect here for me, but I can't quite put my thumb on the what/where/why. This whole process is, for me, MUCH MUCH MUCH more emotional than you make it sound in your words. I'm not sure if I'm reacting to that (emotionally), or if I actually disagree with you.
I think it's helpful to take the emotion out of it. I am an emotional eater, or have struggled with that, but looking at what I'm actually eating, understanding food and diet and nutrients and the like, logging, for me really is a very logical, reasonable process that helps me with the emotional eating tendencies too. None of the figuring out what I should eat/adjusting my diet stuff was emotional, and I don't really understand why it should be (but I accept that some people just won't want to -- my point is that's not because they are unaware their diet could be better or of what steps would make it that way). Packerjohn's strawman seems to be that people are eating insane amounts of candy and drinking enormous amounts of Coke or what not BECAUSE they don't know that's not a great idea, and that's because people on MFP say "eat a healthy diet that is calorie appropriate and watch what foods are satiating and not" and NOT "cut way back on sugar, period." I think that's totally untrue to reality -- if you are eating all that sugar and a non-nutritious diet, you know it and are choosing to (or perhaps are choosing that the tradeoff isn't worth it to you, or you are stuck in old habits that may be hard to break or take time -- point is it's not because you are unaware, once you look at it, of the problems with the diet).
If you can figure out why there's a disconnect here, I would like to understand your POV.
Gotcha. That's the breadcrumb I was missing. With that clarification, I can say that I agree with you.
My diet is poor. I know it's poor. A good day for me is being within earshot of my calorie goal. I know I eat "too much" packaged/prepared food and not enough fruits or vegetables. I also know that, given everything else I'm juggling at this point in my life, I simply don't care. I may regret that at some point down the road, I'm aware of that too.
However, I can also see where someone might use "just eat whatever you want but stay within your calories" as an excuse to *insert whatever "bad" behavior*... it's just a question of whether or not they are aware they are using it as an excuse.4 -
People trash talking cardio. I'm a runner and I enjoy running and I don't appreciate it when people talk about running as if it's going to kill you. Now I understand that some people don't like running and that's fine -- you have to find a workout program that works for you -- but the belittlement of people who like to run, or people who like cardio in general, sometimes makes me feel like running isn't a good workout and I should go to the gym to lift. Of course I never do that because I don't like going to the gym. I'd rather run outside and do calisthenics than go to the gym and lift weights. That's what works for me.
I also dislike the whole, "if you run you're going to eat up all your muscles" idea. Or the general cardio is going to cause your muscles to waste away and you're going to be left with all this flab and turn into a stringy, fat laden, skinny noodle person.11 -
FitAndLean_5738 wrote: »People trash talking cardio. I'm a runner and I enjoy running and I don't appreciate it when people talk about running as if it's going to kill you. Now I understand that some people don't like running and that's fine -- you have to find a workout program that works for you -- but the belittlement of people who like to run, or people who like cardio in general, sometimes makes me feel like running isn't a good workout and I should go to the gym to lift. Of course I never do that because I don't like going to the gym. I'd rather run outside and do calisthenics than go to the gym and lift weights. That's what works for me.
I also dislike the whole, "if you run you're going to eat up all your muscles" idea. Or the general cardio is going to cause your muscles to waste away and you're going to be left with all this flab and turn into a stringy, fat laden, skinny noodle person.
Where have you seen people who enjoy running being belittled here? I'm just curious because I don't think I've ever seen that.
6 -
janejellyroll wrote: »FitAndLean_5738 wrote: »People trash talking cardio. I'm a runner and I enjoy running and I don't appreciate it when people talk about running as if it's going to kill you. Now I understand that some people don't like running and that's fine -- you have to find a workout program that works for you -- but the belittlement of people who like to run, or people who like cardio in general, sometimes makes me feel like running isn't a good workout and I should go to the gym to lift. Of course I never do that because I don't like going to the gym. I'd rather run outside and do calisthenics than go to the gym and lift weights. That's what works for me.
I also dislike the whole, "if you run you're going to eat up all your muscles" idea. Or the general cardio is going to cause your muscles to waste away and you're going to be left with all this flab and turn into a stringy, fat laden, skinny noodle person.
Where have you seen people who enjoy running being belittled here? I'm just curious because I don't think I've ever seen that.
@quiksylver296 does it to me all the time.....
11 -
janejellyroll wrote: »FitAndLean_5738 wrote: »People trash talking cardio. I'm a runner and I enjoy running and I don't appreciate it when people talk about running as if it's going to kill you. Now I understand that some people don't like running and that's fine -- you have to find a workout program that works for you -- but the belittlement of people who like to run, or people who like cardio in general, sometimes makes me feel like running isn't a good workout and I should go to the gym to lift. Of course I never do that because I don't like going to the gym. I'd rather run outside and do calisthenics than go to the gym and lift weights. That's what works for me.
I also dislike the whole, "if you run you're going to eat up all your muscles" idea. Or the general cardio is going to cause your muscles to waste away and you're going to be left with all this flab and turn into a stringy, fat laden, skinny noodle person.
Where have you seen people who enjoy running being belittled here? I'm just curious because I don't think I've ever seen that.
I think it's primarily the case that people are noticing the posts about things they take issue with, not that there are necessarily many of them. Which is why I keep coming back to the "commonly given" in the thread title.
I do see new ones encouraged to lift weights as a way to stave off muscle loss during weight loss, and not to think they need (or should rely on) an aggressive cardio routine to lose weight. But I've never seen anyone actively discouraged from running or other cardio.7 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »FitAndLean_5738 wrote: »People trash talking cardio. I'm a runner and I enjoy running and I don't appreciate it when people talk about running as if it's going to kill you. Now I understand that some people don't like running and that's fine -- you have to find a workout program that works for you -- but the belittlement of people who like to run, or people who like cardio in general, sometimes makes me feel like running isn't a good workout and I should go to the gym to lift. Of course I never do that because I don't like going to the gym. I'd rather run outside and do calisthenics than go to the gym and lift weights. That's what works for me.
I also dislike the whole, "if you run you're going to eat up all your muscles" idea. Or the general cardio is going to cause your muscles to waste away and you're going to be left with all this flab and turn into a stringy, fat laden, skinny noodle person.
Where have you seen people who enjoy running being belittled here? I'm just curious because I don't think I've ever seen that.
@quiksylver296 does it to me all the time.....
I was belittling myself this weekend at the end of my fifteen-miler when it felt like my sports bra was chafing its way into my internal organs and my nose was freezing.
Such a great hobby, janejellyroll, wow, you really know how to have a great time, don't you? Some people take up knitting or swim in a heated pool, but you thought training for a marathon in the middle of winter would be cool . . .23
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions