Why I am cutting back on sugar
Replies
-
FitnessTim wrote: »asflatasapancake wrote: »Am I the only one who thinks that sugar is being used as an excuse for why someone is overweight? It isn't that they overeat. It's the sugar's fault. Now they can be unhealthy and a financial burden to the health system and be accepted. Thank you Katie Couric.
As an American, was I responsible for my diet growing up? Was it a conscious reasoned choice for me to eat sugary cereals, candy, cola, etc. You can blame my parents but they came from a generation that didn't have to worry as much about what they ate - food was just generally better for you.
On the other hand, the companies that produced and marketed the food knew what they were doing and are still doing. They purposefully make food incredibly hard to resist. Good for them but who should have been responsible for informing the public the negative consequences of eating the food that was pushed on them by expert marketers.
Tell the overwhelming amount of obese children that it is their fault they are overweight. Or tell the parents who constantly struggle to get their kids to eat healthy foods that it is their fault they can't compete with billboards, commercials, Youtube videos and so on that promote junk food.
Ultimately it is my responsibility what I put in my body. I choose to become better informed about what proportions of foods I should eat. However, nobody should be forced to put in the same time and effort I have over the years to achieve reasonably good health.
I’d just like to point out that it is these companies’ job to make their products appealing. What’s more, most are publicly owned companies, so they in fact have a responsibility to shareholders to sell as much product for as much profit as possible. That’s not malevolent, it’s capitalism.
Word. And, ultimately, it's up to the parents or us as grown adults to learn about nutrition. Parent's shouldn't have to compete with billboards. They're parents, and until their children have money of their own, they are in charge of nutrition. Parents who let their children tantrum their way into too much food are only reinforcing terrible habits and get zero sympathy from me.
And I am going to disagree with your final point. I think if more people put in more time and effort into understanding health and nutrition, the world would be a much fitter place. You weren't 'forced' to do it; you chose to do it to improve your life and health. Frankly, I think basic nutrition should be mandatory in schools.0 -
but wouldn’t that rice only store as fat if you were eating at a caloric surplus?
At a calorie deficit you might be storing fat and using fat all the time, but your net added fat would be negative, yes.
I think the deal with eating plain rice (which sounds horrible to me--the only person I know who does that is thin and simply isn't interested in food) is that for many people it would not be filling so you'd be inclined to eat more later.
For me, stuff like rice and pasta didn't provoke overeating at all (maybe because I can't imagine eating them alone) due to any increased hunger. I just had a distorted serving size idea and would eat it because it was on my plate sometimes (along with other food that made it delicious). This is not at all something unique to carbs, for me.
Indeed, I'm really not a carb person compared to many, though--whenever people talk about being tempted by bread (well, other than naan, which is amazing) or pasta or rice or even huge servings of potatoes and, especially, cereal (I hate cold cereal), I'm always mystified. Why, when the world includes meat and cheese? ;-) Yet somehow I managed to get quite fat.0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »Fiber - the fiber in fruit mitigates the effects of fructose in metabolics. There is not enough fiber in yogurt to do that.
Doesn't it depend on how you eat the yogurt? Lots of people eat it WITH fruit or on oatmeal, for example.
I don't add sugar to yogurt (my personal preference is to eat it plain with berries or some other fruit), but if I did and otherwise ate it as I almost always do--with a breakfast including lots of veggies and some fruit--why would the bit of added sugar be an issue?
Yes - context does matter - well I believe it does. I know you have posts that state the same - in a vacuum, sure there's an issue there - but if you eat it with something fibrous or add protein, it would help.
Like white rice - eat white rice unto itself - you'll spike your blood sugar and make that rice store as fat - but that's in a vacuum. Eat white rice with protein and a fibrous veggie (non-starchy), now you balanced off the GI load.
Great point!
Sorry to butt in, but wouldn’t that rice only store as fat if you were eating at a caloric surplus? You have inspired me to look into studies done on this when I have some free time
I do very much appreciate the calm and thoughtful discussion you guys have going!
@try2again, this is the thread lemurcat mentions. I too found it very informative.
No. Several things must be satisfied in order to determine whether storage of carbohydrates into fat. It doesn't have to be in relation to calorie surplus. There's how the body metabolizes the food - what context by which you eat it, and whether you utilize the high dose of energy provided within a specific timeframe of eating it.
White rice has no fiber - it digests and raises blood sugar substantially in a vacuum. Most people don't eat white rice in a vacuum (it's paired with significant protein and a non-starchy veggie) but that's why sugar is so powerful, as an example, a lot of times it's eaten unto itself without anything else to help mitigate the effects.0 -
FitnessTim wrote: »asflatasapancake wrote: »Am I the only one who thinks that sugar is being used as an excuse for why someone is overweight? It isn't that they overeat. It's the sugar's fault. Now they can be unhealthy and a financial burden to the health system and be accepted. Thank you Katie Couric.
As an American, was I responsible for my diet growing up? Was it a conscious reasoned choice for me to eat sugary cereals, candy, cola, etc. You can blame my parents but they came from a generation that didn't have to worry as much about what they ate - food was just generally better for you.
On the other hand, the companies that produced and marketed the food knew what they were doing and are still doing. They purposefully make food incredibly hard to resist. Good for them but who should have been responsible for informing the public the negative consequences of eating the food that was pushed on them by expert marketers.
Tell the overwhelming amount of obese children that it is their fault they are overweight. Or tell the parents who constantly struggle to get their kids to eat healthy foods that it is their fault they can't compete with billboards, commercials, Youtube videos and so on that promote junk food.
Ultimately it is my responsibility what I put in my body. I choose to become better informed about what proportions of foods I should eat. However, nobody should be forced to put in the same time and effort I have over the years to achieve reasonably good health.
I’d just like to point out that it is these companies’ job to make their products appealing. What’s more, most are publicly owned companies, so they in fact have a responsibility to shareholders to sell as much product for as much profit as possible. That’s not malevolent, it’s capitalism.
wait, companies are supposed to make appealing products that are profitable????????????0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »Fiber - the fiber in fruit mitigates the effects of fructose in metabolics. There is not enough fiber in yogurt to do that.
Doesn't it depend on how you eat the yogurt? Lots of people eat it WITH fruit or on oatmeal, for example.
I don't add sugar to yogurt (my personal preference is to eat it plain with berries or some other fruit), but if I did and otherwise ate it as I almost always do--with a breakfast including lots of veggies and some fruit--why would the bit of added sugar be an issue?
Yes - context does matter - well I believe it does. I know you have posts that state the same - in a vacuum, sure there's an issue there - but if you eat it with something fibrous or add protein, it would help.
Like white rice - eat white rice unto itself - you'll spike your blood sugar and make that rice store as fat - but that's in a vacuum. Eat white rice with protein and a fibrous veggie (non-starchy), now you balanced off the GI load.
Great point!
Sorry to butt in, but wouldn’t that rice only store as fat if you were eating at a caloric surplus? You have inspired me to look into studies done on this when I have some free time I do very much appreciate the calm and thoughtful discussion you guys have going!
@try2again, this is the thread lemurcat mentions. I too found it very informative.
No. Several things must be satisfied in order to determine whether storage of carbohydrates into fat. It doesn't have to be in relation to calorie surplus. There's how the body metabolizes the food - what context by which you eat it, and whether you utilize the high dose of energy provided within a specific timeframe of eating it.
White rice has no fiber - it digests and raises blood sugar substantially in a vacuum. Most people don't eat white rice in a vacuum (it's paired with significant protein and a non-starchy veggie) but that's why sugar is so powerful, as an example, a lot of times it's eaten unto itself without anything else to help mitigate the effects.
if you have already hit your micros for the day, or a good portion thereof, I don't see how this even applies.
No one is eating a diet of 100% sugar, or white rice0 -
This is just silly. I have automatically cut back on sugar just because I'm eating less carbs. I'm not going to cut out things like fruit. No one gets fat just from eating too much fruit lol. My main concern throughout the day is "am I getting enough protein, and how can I get more?" And whether I'm going over on carbs. Sugar is the least of my worries. I also firmly believe that cutting things back too much can make one feel deprived. I love ice cream. If it fits into my calories/macros I will eat it after dinner every single day. I didn't get to last night because I was under on protein and had already almost hit my carb limit, so I had a protein shake instead.
This BS of cutting out sugar (or fats as some people do) is junk science. People don't get fat because they eat too much sugar, they get fat because the eat too many calories and don't exercise.
CICO (calories in calories out), that's all it boils down to. Anything else is just horse****.0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »Fiber - the fiber in fruit mitigates the effects of fructose in metabolics. There is not enough fiber in yogurt to do that.
Doesn't it depend on how you eat the yogurt? Lots of people eat it WITH fruit or on oatmeal, for example.
I don't add sugar to yogurt (my personal preference is to eat it plain with berries or some other fruit), but if I did and otherwise ate it as I almost always do--with a breakfast including lots of veggies and some fruit--why would the bit of added sugar be an issue?
Yes - context does matter - well I believe it does. I know you have posts that state the same - in a vacuum, sure there's an issue there - but if you eat it with something fibrous or add protein, it would help.
Like white rice - eat white rice unto itself - you'll spike your blood sugar and make that rice store as fat - but that's in a vacuum. Eat white rice with protein and a fibrous veggie (non-starchy), now you balanced off the GI load.
Great point!
Sorry to butt in, but wouldn’t that rice only store as fat if you were eating at a caloric surplus? You have inspired me to look into studies done on this when I have some free time I do very much appreciate the calm and thoughtful discussion you guys have going!
@try2again, this is the thread lemurcat mentions. I too found it very informative.
No. Several things must be satisfied in order to determine whether storage of carbohydrates into fat. It doesn't have to be in relation to calorie surplus. There's how the body metabolizes the food - what context by which you eat it, and whether you utilize the high dose of energy provided within a specific timeframe of eating it.
White rice has no fiber - it digests and raises blood sugar substantially in a vacuum. Most people don't eat white rice in a vacuum (it's paired with significant protein and a non-starchy veggie) but that's why sugar is so powerful, as an example, a lot of times it's eaten unto itself without anything else to help mitigate the effects.
if you have already hit your micros for the day, or a good portion thereof, I don't see how this even applies.
No one is eating a diet of 100% sugar, or white rice
Psssh. Everyone knows that those white rice and pasta-eating people in the blue zones are all so fat and die so young.0 -
FitnessTim wrote: »asflatasapancake wrote: »Am I the only one who thinks that sugar is being used as an excuse for why someone is overweight? It isn't that they overeat. It's the sugar's fault. Now they can be unhealthy and a financial burden to the health system and be accepted. Thank you Katie Couric.
As an American, was I responsible for my diet growing up? Was it a conscious reasoned choice for me to eat sugary cereals, candy, cola, etc. You can blame my parents but they came from a generation that didn't have to worry as much about what they ate - food was just generally better for you.
On the other hand, the companies that produced and marketed the food knew what they were doing and are still doing. They purposefully make food incredibly hard to resist. Good for them but who should have been responsible for informing the public the negative consequences of eating the food that was pushed on them by expert marketers.
Tell the overwhelming amount of obese children that it is their fault they are overweight. Or tell the parents who constantly struggle to get their kids to eat healthy foods that it is their fault they can't compete with billboards, commercials, Youtube videos and so on that promote junk food.
Ultimately it is my responsibility what I put in my body. I choose to become better informed about what proportions of foods I should eat. However, nobody should be forced to put in the same time and effort I have over the years to achieve reasonably good health.
I’d just like to point out that it is these companies’ job to make their products appealing. What’s more, most are publicly owned companies, so they in fact have a responsibility to shareholders to sell as much product for as much profit as possible. That’s not malevolent, it’s capitalism.
Word. And, ultimately, it's up to the parents or us as grown adults to learn about nutrition. Parent's shouldn't have to compete with billboards. They're parents, and until their children have money of their own, they are in charge of nutrition. Parents who let their children tantrum their way into too much food are only reinforcing terrible habits and get zero sympathy from me.
And I am going to disagree with your final point. I think if more people put in more time and effort into understanding health and nutrition, the world would be a much fitter place. You weren't 'forced' to do it; you chose to do it to improve your life and health. Frankly, I think basic nutrition should be mandatory in schools.
I could not agree more with every point you make. I for one would not tolerate temper tantrums or picky eating, especially as it’s not something I ever indulged in. As for teaching nutrition, isn’t there a sex ed / home ec / parenting type of class mandatory in US high schools? (I live in Canada, I know nothing) That sounds like the perfect place to insert this into the curriculum.
Lemurcat, thank you for the explanation. And lol, ndj!0 -
FitnessTim wrote: »As an American, was I responsible for my diet growing up? Was it a conscious reasoned choice for me to eat sugary cereals, candy, cola, etc. You can blame my parents but they came from a generation that didn't have to worry as much about what they ate - food was just generally better for you.
Well, you are roughly my age.
As a kid cereal was always on offer, yes (I hated cold cereal, as mentioned in my prior post, so am well aware of this, since I refused to eat it at home but was forced to choke down some to be polite when staying overnight somewhere--kids used to have to do things like that).
We did not regularly have soda--it was a rare special occasion thing (not like now, it seems), and same with fast food, even though it existed. Everyone knew candy was something that should be eaten in limited quantities. I honestly can't think of anything people thought was healthy but in retrospect wasn't, except perhaps for the over-emphasis on the benefits of non sugary cereals. So blaming marketing seems inaccurate.
Also, there weren't lots of fat kids.
What seems different now is that a lot of the things that were special occasions for us are commonplace now--fast food for numerous meals, giant sodas and "energy drinks" for kids, limitless sweets vs. a small afterschool snack. So the question is why has this changed? Do people now think that these things are good for kids or harmless, unlike in the '80s? I seriously doubt it--people have not become way dumber, and marketing was probably much more effective in the '70s and '80s, since these days everyone is rather cynical about it, or you'd think, anyway (and I know I am and get the impression that the kids of my friends are relatively media savvy compared with us, and even in the '80s and '90s being jaded and media savvy was already a thing).
But more significantly, social mores have changed. There were ideas about what a meal was, what snacks were and the role they should play, that most meals should be homecooked and eaten together as a family, etc., back when I was growing up that seem to no longer be in existence. The SAD that I learned when growing up was meat (including fish), potatoes or some other starch, and veggies. (We also knew corn was a starch.) I'm not saying meat & potatoes was all that, and our menu included some rather unfortunate casseroles on occasion and plenty of canned soup and veggies, but on the whole this wasn't a bad diet. Now some of have a much more widely varied diet (the only Asian food we ever had growing up was "Chinese," the only pasta "spaghetti" or "lasagne," and beyond that there's a huge range of foods I eat regularly I'd never heard of), but the SAD seems to be something much worse.
What I think it is is that in the absence of reasons not to eat it or to put in more work, humans of course are tempted by and consume the huge amount of palatable, cheap (in terms of time and money) food. But having things available is not bad. Our failure to properly judge the costs and benefits is what is a problem.0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »granturismo wrote: »
No, all carbohydrates are sugars. They're synonyms.
Not true. The difference between total carbs, fiber + sugar = starch. Fiber is NOT sugar. Fiber is included in total carbohydrates.
See e.g., http://www.baruch.cuny.edu/wsas/departments/natural_science/biology/bio1003/organic.htmlCarbohydrates are the main energy-storage molecules in most organisms. They are also important structural components for many organisms. The building blocks of carbohydrates are small molecules called sugars, composed of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen. Carbohydrates are classified according to the number of sugar molecules they contain. Monosaccharides, such as glucose, fructose, ribose, and galactose, contain only one sugar molecule. Disaccharides, such as sucrose, maltose and lactose, contain two sugar molecules linked together. Polysaccharides, such as starch, glycogen, cellulose and chitin, contain many sugar molecules linked together.
- Cellulose, a fiber, is a polysaccharide.
- Carbohydrates are built of sugars.0 -
FitnessTim wrote: »asflatasapancake wrote: »Am I the only one who thinks that sugar is being used as an excuse for why someone is overweight? It isn't that they overeat. It's the sugar's fault. Now they can be unhealthy and a financial burden to the health system and be accepted. Thank you Katie Couric.
As an American, was I responsible for my diet growing up? Was it a conscious reasoned choice for me to eat sugary cereals, candy, cola, etc. You can blame my parents but they came from a generation that didn't have to worry as much about what they ate - food was just generally better for you.
On the other hand, the companies that produced and marketed the food knew what they were doing and are still doing. They purposefully make food incredibly hard to resist. Good for them but who should have been responsible for informing the public the negative consequences of eating the food that was pushed on them by expert marketers.
Tell the overwhelming amount of obese children that it is their fault they are overweight. Or tell the parents who constantly struggle to get their kids to eat healthy foods that it is their fault they can't compete with billboards, commercials, Youtube videos and so on that promote junk food.
Ultimately it is my responsibility what I put in my body. I choose to become better informed about what proportions of foods I should eat. However, nobody should be forced to put in the same time and effort I have over the years to achieve reasonably good health.
I’d just like to point out that it is these companies’ job to make their products appealing. What’s more, most are publicly owned companies, so they in fact have a responsibility to shareholders to sell as much product for as much profit as possible. That’s not malevolent, it’s capitalism.
Word. And, ultimately, it's up to the parents or us as grown adults to learn about nutrition. Parent's shouldn't have to compete with billboards. They're parents, and until their children have money of their own, they are in charge of nutrition. Parents who let their children tantrum their way into too much food are only reinforcing terrible habits and get zero sympathy from me.
And I am going to disagree with your final point. I think if more people put in more time and effort into understanding health and nutrition, the world would be a much fitter place. You weren't 'forced' to do it; you chose to do it to improve your life and health. Frankly, I think basic nutrition should be mandatory in schools.
While it is a company's job to make their products appealing that does not take them off the hook. Are the cigarette companies right to continue to push their products to kids because it is not their responsibility. They can't push it to kids in the US because it has since become illegal to do so but they do so in developing countries.
Knowingly making a product for profit that contributes to the poor health of consumers IS malevolent. It isn't illegal but it is wrong. The difference between selling cigarettes and selling Coke is that the jury is still out on whether or not Coke does in fact increase the health risks.
At the very least, with the prevalence of childhood obesity, products with a high percentage of calories coming from sugar should not be marketed to children.
Just because the general population is not well informed, or even misinformed, that doesn't mean they should be fair game to companies who do know better.0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »Fiber - the fiber in fruit mitigates the effects of fructose in metabolics. There is not enough fiber in yogurt to do that.
Doesn't it depend on how you eat the yogurt? Lots of people eat it WITH fruit or on oatmeal, for example.
I don't add sugar to yogurt (my personal preference is to eat it plain with berries or some other fruit), but if I did and otherwise ate it as I almost always do--with a breakfast including lots of veggies and some fruit--why would the bit of added sugar be an issue?
Yes - context does matter - well I believe it does. I know you have posts that state the same - in a vacuum, sure there's an issue there - but if you eat it with something fibrous or add protein, it would help.
Like white rice - eat white rice unto itself - you'll spike your blood sugar and make that rice store as fat - but that's in a vacuum. Eat white rice with protein and a fibrous veggie (non-starchy), now you balanced off the GI load.
Great point!
In a calorie deficit?
And don't get started with your visceral fat argument. Because it's specious at best.
There's nothing specious about visceral fat. I had it - and I reduced it down to minimal amounts. I think that's trivializing the argument.
Calorie deficits are relative - if you eat a high protein diet, you raise your metabolism to account for the extra protein - it's a relative number. What's the number, you really don't know - it's a best guess - and it's a best estimation based upon the nutritional profile of the food you are eating.
If glycogen is not needed by the muscles, you store it as fat. That doesn't equate to being in a calorie deficit. You can be in a deficit, satisfied muscle glycogen requirements and still store it as fat.
Completely false.
Only when CHO energy intake exceeds TEE does DNL in liver or adipose tissue contribute significantly to the whole-body energy economy. It is concluded that DNL is not the pathway of first resort for added dietary CHO, in humans.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10365981
0 -
FitnessTim wrote: »FitnessTim wrote: »asflatasapancake wrote: »Am I the only one who thinks that sugar is being used as an excuse for why someone is overweight? It isn't that they overeat. It's the sugar's fault. Now they can be unhealthy and a financial burden to the health system and be accepted. Thank you Katie Couric.
As an American, was I responsible for my diet growing up? Was it a conscious reasoned choice for me to eat sugary cereals, candy, cola, etc. You can blame my parents but they came from a generation that didn't have to worry as much about what they ate - food was just generally better for you.
On the other hand, the companies that produced and marketed the food knew what they were doing and are still doing. They purposefully make food incredibly hard to resist. Good for them but who should have been responsible for informing the public the negative consequences of eating the food that was pushed on them by expert marketers.
Tell the overwhelming amount of obese children that it is their fault they are overweight. Or tell the parents who constantly struggle to get their kids to eat healthy foods that it is their fault they can't compete with billboards, commercials, Youtube videos and so on that promote junk food.
Ultimately it is my responsibility what I put in my body. I choose to become better informed about what proportions of foods I should eat. However, nobody should be forced to put in the same time and effort I have over the years to achieve reasonably good health.
I’d just like to point out that it is these companies’ job to make their products appealing. What’s more, most are publicly owned companies, so they in fact have a responsibility to shareholders to sell as much product for as much profit as possible. That’s not malevolent, it’s capitalism.
Word. And, ultimately, it's up to the parents or us as grown adults to learn about nutrition. Parent's shouldn't have to compete with billboards. They're parents, and until their children have money of their own, they are in charge of nutrition. Parents who let their children tantrum their way into too much food are only reinforcing terrible habits and get zero sympathy from me.
And I am going to disagree with your final point. I think if more people put in more time and effort into understanding health and nutrition, the world would be a much fitter place. You weren't 'forced' to do it; you chose to do it to improve your life and health. Frankly, I think basic nutrition should be mandatory in schools.
While it is a company's job to make their products appealing that does not take them off the hook. Are the cigarette companies right to continue to push their products to kids because it is not their responsibility. They can't push it to kids in the US because it has since become illegal to do so but they do so in developing countries.
Knowingly making a product for profit that contributes to the poor health of consumers IS malevolent. It isn't illegal but it is wrong. The difference between selling cigarettes and selling Coke is that the jury is still out on whether or not Coke does in fact increase the health risks.
At the very least, with the prevalence of childhood obesity, products with a high percentage of calories coming from sugar should not be marketed to children.
Just because the general population is not well informed, or even misinformed, that doesn't mean they should be fair game to companies who do know better.
so we are comparing cigarettes to food companies now, really?0 -
FitnessTim wrote: »FitnessTim wrote: »asflatasapancake wrote: »Am I the only one who thinks that sugar is being used as an excuse for why someone is overweight? It isn't that they overeat. It's the sugar's fault. Now they can be unhealthy and a financial burden to the health system and be accepted. Thank you Katie Couric.
As an American, was I responsible for my diet growing up? Was it a conscious reasoned choice for me to eat sugary cereals, candy, cola, etc. You can blame my parents but they came from a generation that didn't have to worry as much about what they ate - food was just generally better for you.
On the other hand, the companies that produced and marketed the food knew what they were doing and are still doing. They purposefully make food incredibly hard to resist. Good for them but who should have been responsible for informing the public the negative consequences of eating the food that was pushed on them by expert marketers.
Tell the overwhelming amount of obese children that it is their fault they are overweight. Or tell the parents who constantly struggle to get their kids to eat healthy foods that it is their fault they can't compete with billboards, commercials, Youtube videos and so on that promote junk food.
Ultimately it is my responsibility what I put in my body. I choose to become better informed about what proportions of foods I should eat. However, nobody should be forced to put in the same time and effort I have over the years to achieve reasonably good health.
I’d just like to point out that it is these companies’ job to make their products appealing. What’s more, most are publicly owned companies, so they in fact have a responsibility to shareholders to sell as much product for as much profit as possible. That’s not malevolent, it’s capitalism.
Word. And, ultimately, it's up to the parents or us as grown adults to learn about nutrition. Parent's shouldn't have to compete with billboards. They're parents, and until their children have money of their own, they are in charge of nutrition. Parents who let their children tantrum their way into too much food are only reinforcing terrible habits and get zero sympathy from me.
And I am going to disagree with your final point. I think if more people put in more time and effort into understanding health and nutrition, the world would be a much fitter place. You weren't 'forced' to do it; you chose to do it to improve your life and health. Frankly, I think basic nutrition should be mandatory in schools.
While it is a company's job to make their products appealing that does not take them off the hook. Are the cigarette companies right to continue to push their products to kids because it is not their responsibility. They can't push it to kids in the US because it has since become illegal to do so but they do so in developing countries.
Knowingly making a product for profit that contributes to the poor health of consumers IS malevolent. It isn't illegal but it is wrong. The difference between selling cigarettes and selling Coke is that the jury is still out on whether or not Coke does in fact increase the health risks.
At the very least, with the prevalence of childhood obesity, products with a high percentage of calories coming from sugar should not be marketed to children.
Just because the general population is not well informed, or even misinformed, that doesn't mean they should be fair game to companies who do know better.
So again, where do we take responsibilities for ourselves? Are you able to tell your children no? Are you able to weigh the pro's and con's of these items? Are you getting the proper exercise that keeps up with your diet? No, I don't blame the companies, I blame a lack of education in nutrition and the fact that people are more sedentary then ever. Cigarettes aren't illegal, neither is drinking or many other things we conceive as harmful to ourselves. But we're not talking about cigarettes here. We're talking about food, sugar and in the end we need to be responsible for ourselves and our children. Read labels and exercise actual thought when you purchase products for you and your family.0 -
FitnessTim wrote: »FitnessTim wrote: »asflatasapancake wrote: »Am I the only one who thinks that sugar is being used as an excuse for why someone is overweight? It isn't that they overeat. It's the sugar's fault. Now they can be unhealthy and a financial burden to the health system and be accepted. Thank you Katie Couric.
As an American, was I responsible for my diet growing up? Was it a conscious reasoned choice for me to eat sugary cereals, candy, cola, etc. You can blame my parents but they came from a generation that didn't have to worry as much about what they ate - food was just generally better for you.
On the other hand, the companies that produced and marketed the food knew what they were doing and are still doing. They purposefully make food incredibly hard to resist. Good for them but who should have been responsible for informing the public the negative consequences of eating the food that was pushed on them by expert marketers.
Tell the overwhelming amount of obese children that it is their fault they are overweight. Or tell the parents who constantly struggle to get their kids to eat healthy foods that it is their fault they can't compete with billboards, commercials, Youtube videos and so on that promote junk food.
Ultimately it is my responsibility what I put in my body. I choose to become better informed about what proportions of foods I should eat. However, nobody should be forced to put in the same time and effort I have over the years to achieve reasonably good health.
I’d just like to point out that it is these companies’ job to make their products appealing. What’s more, most are publicly owned companies, so they in fact have a responsibility to shareholders to sell as much product for as much profit as possible. That’s not malevolent, it’s capitalism.
Word. And, ultimately, it's up to the parents or us as grown adults to learn about nutrition. Parent's shouldn't have to compete with billboards. They're parents, and until their children have money of their own, they are in charge of nutrition. Parents who let their children tantrum their way into too much food are only reinforcing terrible habits and get zero sympathy from me.
And I am going to disagree with your final point. I think if more people put in more time and effort into understanding health and nutrition, the world would be a much fitter place. You weren't 'forced' to do it; you chose to do it to improve your life and health. Frankly, I think basic nutrition should be mandatory in schools.
While it is a company's job to make their products appealing that does not take them off the hook. Are the cigarette companies right to continue to push their products to kids because it is not their responsibility. They can't push it to kids in the US because it has since become illegal to do so but they do so in developing countries.
Knowingly making a product for profit that contributes to the poor health of consumers IS malevolent. It isn't illegal but it is wrong. The difference between selling cigarettes and selling Coke is that the jury is still out on whether or not Coke does in fact increase the health risks.
At the very least, with the prevalence of childhood obesity, products with a high percentage of calories coming from sugar should not be marketed to children.
Just because the general population is not well informed, or even misinformed, that doesn't mean they should be fair game to companies who do know better.
But food only contributes to poor health if eaten in excess. And any food is harmful when eaten in excess. It's not just sugary foods. Too much of anything is bad.
It's not up to the manufacturer to monitor how many cookies you eat; that's your job. Their job is to make them available to you.0 -
FitnessTim wrote: »FitnessTim wrote: »asflatasapancake wrote: »Am I the only one who thinks that sugar is being used as an excuse for why someone is overweight? It isn't that they overeat. It's the sugar's fault. Now they can be unhealthy and a financial burden to the health system and be accepted. Thank you Katie Couric.
As an American, was I responsible for my diet growing up? Was it a conscious reasoned choice for me to eat sugary cereals, candy, cola, etc. You can blame my parents but they came from a generation that didn't have to worry as much about what they ate - food was just generally better for you.
On the other hand, the companies that produced and marketed the food knew what they were doing and are still doing. They purposefully make food incredibly hard to resist. Good for them but who should have been responsible for informing the public the negative consequences of eating the food that was pushed on them by expert marketers.
Tell the overwhelming amount of obese children that it is their fault they are overweight. Or tell the parents who constantly struggle to get their kids to eat healthy foods that it is their fault they can't compete with billboards, commercials, Youtube videos and so on that promote junk food.
Ultimately it is my responsibility what I put in my body. I choose to become better informed about what proportions of foods I should eat. However, nobody should be forced to put in the same time and effort I have over the years to achieve reasonably good health.
I’d just like to point out that it is these companies’ job to make their products appealing. What’s more, most are publicly owned companies, so they in fact have a responsibility to shareholders to sell as much product for as much profit as possible. That’s not malevolent, it’s capitalism.
Word. And, ultimately, it's up to the parents or us as grown adults to learn about nutrition. Parent's shouldn't have to compete with billboards. They're parents, and until their children have money of their own, they are in charge of nutrition. Parents who let their children tantrum their way into too much food are only reinforcing terrible habits and get zero sympathy from me.
And I am going to disagree with your final point. I think if more people put in more time and effort into understanding health and nutrition, the world would be a much fitter place. You weren't 'forced' to do it; you chose to do it to improve your life and health. Frankly, I think basic nutrition should be mandatory in schools.
While it is a company's job to make their products appealing that does not take them off the hook. Are the cigarette companies right to continue to push their products to kids because it is not their responsibility. They can't push it to kids in the US because it has since become illegal to do so but they do so in developing countries.
Knowingly making a product for profit that contributes to the poor health of consumers IS malevolent. It isn't illegal but it is wrong. The difference between selling cigarettes and selling Coke is that the jury is still out on whether or not Coke does in fact increase the health risks.
At the very least, with the prevalence of childhood obesity, products with a high percentage of calories coming from sugar should not be marketed to children.
Just because the general population is not well informed, or even misinformed, that doesn't mean they should be fair game to companies who do know better.
The cigarette thing is a bit of a stretch here...
Also, typically even though the sugary cereals, candy bars, etc. are marketed to kids, when I was 10, I wasn't going to the grocery store to purchase Toaster Strudel myself. It was my parents who made the grocery runs. And it was up to my parents as to whether or not they wanted to buy the things I pestered them for.
Even if I *kitten* and moaned, they were responsible for being parents and either telling me "no" or buying a damn package of Swiss Cake Rolls.
Are you advocating blaming Coke (or any other company for that matter) because someone didn't have the foresight to police their children's soda consumption? Are you really saying that people should file a lawsuit against Betty Crocker because a kid might have eaten his or her body weight in Fruit by the Foot and tubs of frosting and therefore blew up like a balloon? Right... it's the company's fault and totally not parents of young children or (if age appropriate) individuals themselves.0 -
nmKombuchaCat wrote: »FitnessTim wrote: »I'm surprised at how strongly people will defend sugar. I guess it is my fault for using the phrasing "sugar is bad". That's totally subjective and not true.
Based on historical data, excess sugar does appear to be a contributing factor to health issues.
Does that work for everyone? That may be an acceptable way to put it but it is unlikely to get the average person motivated to restrict their sugar intake.
In my personal experience, not evidence but worth discussing, sugar is hard to control. About a year ago, I was in peak condition, eating right and exercising regularly. One day I decided to try Nutella. I had never had it before and I was curious about how it tasted. I spread some on a rice cake and took a taste. To me, it was the best thing I had ever tasted. Short time later my healthy lifestyle was derailed.
I can't say that one taste of processed sugar was what sent me on a tailspin but it definitely made keeping my diet in check more difficult.
From WebMd:
Your Brain on SugarINEXPLICABLE WEIGHT GAIN You stay away from burgers and drink diet soda. But sugar—both real and artificial—is the secret saboteur. When the pancreas senses sugar, the body releases insulin, which causes cells in the liver, muscle, and fat tissue to take up glucose from the blood, storing it as glycogen for energy. Eat too much at once, though, and insulin levels spike, then drop. The aftermath? You feel tired, then crave more sustenance to perk up.
I'm not suggesting that sugar has the same effect on everyone. I'm not saying that people on a high sugar diet can't keep their weight under control. What I am saying is that based on all the evidence and studies, it is worth it for people to question whether or not sugar has a negative impact on their health and fitness goals.
You have obviously never seen a sugar post on here. I've posted similar anti-sugar things and gotten the same response. People want to think they can eat whatever they want just smaller amounts and that fixes everything. Most of those people end up regaining the weight...I know that was me. Look I've got much to loose but it's way easier if you can let go of the sugar, namely large amounts of fructose. I'm able to do things like intermittent fasting that I could never have done with my prior sugar intake. There's also the freedom from constant hunger and snacking and the hypoglycemia thing. People will tell you it's Psuedoscience and that you know nothing of how the metabolism works. They are wrong. Different foods are metabolized differently and effect your hormones differently. There is plenty of research out there that pans this out and has been sited repeatedly on this site. I would suggest you join us over at the paleo/primal group. Even if you don't go paleo you will find people who understand these concepts and are healthier for it.
You're projecting when you say things like this. I did alternate-day IF for weight loss, 5:2IF as my transition plan into maintenance and I now do 16:8IF as part of my maintenance plan. I have absolutely no problem doing IF while eating all the foods I enjoy, including things that have sugar. And I'm never hungry and I don't snack (usually eat two large meals a day and call it good). There's lots of others here who do IF and eat the foods that they enjoy, including sugary ones, and are having great success with their weight/fitness goals.
The reality is-there's a dismal success rate with long term weight loss success, regardless of what woe/plan someone follows. Doesn't matter if you follow CICO, low carb, vegan, 'paleo', are 'pro' sugar or 'anti' sugar etc etc. There's no legitimate studies out there that point to one woe and shows that it has a high success rate for long term weight loss success. What many studies DO show though, is that most of us here will fail at this whole thing long term. I'm a big believer that we all need to figure out what works for us individually (probably through lots of trial and error), and then focus on that.
If someone has an easier time maintaining their weight loss because of certain parameters, like cutting down on sugar, then more power to them. I don't eat past 7pm, because it's a parameter that helps me keep on track. Does that mean that everyone should do this, because it works for me? Of course not. And just because someone feels led to cut back on sugar in their own woe, does not mean that everyone should do that. Sugar isn't bad, eating after 7pm isn't bad, daily weigh-ins aren't bad, weekly weigh-ins aren't bad, etc etc etc. But when someone starts projecting their own 'parameters' on other people and then says that's the Truth, it makes me question the legitimacy of everything they post.0 -
flyingtanuki wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »granturismo wrote: »
No, all carbohydrates are sugars. They're synonyms.
Not true. The difference between total carbs, fiber + sugar = starch. Fiber is NOT sugar. Fiber is included in total carbohydrates.
See e.g., http://www.baruch.cuny.edu/wsas/departments/natural_science/biology/bio1003/organic.htmlCarbohydrates are the main energy-storage molecules in most organisms. They are also important structural components for many organisms. The building blocks of carbohydrates are small molecules called sugars, composed of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen. Carbohydrates are classified according to the number of sugar molecules they contain. Monosaccharides, such as glucose, fructose, ribose, and galactose, contain only one sugar molecule. Disaccharides, such as sucrose, maltose and lactose, contain two sugar molecules linked together. Polysaccharides, such as starch, glycogen, cellulose and chitin, contain many sugar molecules linked together.
- Cellulose, a fiber, is a polysaccharide.
- Carbohydrates are built of sugars.
In the context of digestion, Fiber is meaningless. It's DOA.0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »Fiber - the fiber in fruit mitigates the effects of fructose in metabolics. There is not enough fiber in yogurt to do that.
Doesn't it depend on how you eat the yogurt? Lots of people eat it WITH fruit or on oatmeal, for example.
I don't add sugar to yogurt (my personal preference is to eat it plain with berries or some other fruit), but if I did and otherwise ate it as I almost always do--with a breakfast including lots of veggies and some fruit--why would the bit of added sugar be an issue?
Yes - context does matter - well I believe it does. I know you have posts that state the same - in a vacuum, sure there's an issue there - but if you eat it with something fibrous or add protein, it would help.
Like white rice - eat white rice unto itself - you'll spike your blood sugar and make that rice store as fat - but that's in a vacuum. Eat white rice with protein and a fibrous veggie (non-starchy), now you balanced off the GI load.
Great point!
In a calorie deficit?
And don't get started with your visceral fat argument. Because it's specious at best.
There's nothing specious about visceral fat. I had it - and I reduced it down to minimal amounts. I think that's trivializing the argument.
Calorie deficits are relative - if you eat a high protein diet, you raise your metabolism to account for the extra protein - it's a relative number. What's the number, you really don't know - it's a best guess - and it's a best estimation based upon the nutritional profile of the food you are eating.
If glycogen is not needed by the muscles, you store it as fat. That doesn't equate to being in a calorie deficit. You can be in a deficit, satisfied muscle glycogen requirements and still store it as fat.
Completely false.
Only when CHO energy intake exceeds TEE does DNL in liver or adipose tissue contribute significantly to the whole-body energy economy. It is concluded that DNL is not the pathway of first resort for added dietary CHO, in humans.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10365981
For emphasis...0 -
What seems different now is that a lot of the things that were special occasions for us are commonplace now--fast food for numerous meals, giant sodas and "energy drinks" for kids, limitless sweets vs. a small afterschool snack.
But more significantly, social mores have changed. There were ideas about what a meal was, what snacks were and the role they should play, that most meals should be homecooked and eaten together as a family, etc., back when I was growing up that seem to no longer be in existence.
When I was a kid (mid 70s), soda was a treat we had on pizza night every few weeks. Nobody guzzled it daily. We ate at home, under the watchful eye of a parent. I remember a trip to McDonalds about 3 times, and that was as a family. The meals my mom prepared certainly were not always "healthy", but we were served reasonable portions of them and then sent outside to play. Lots of factors working against kids these days.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 2.3K Health, Wellness and Goals
- 532 Introduce Yourself
- 153 Getting Started
- 413 Health and Weight Loss
- 218 Food and Nutrition
- 76 Recipes
- 356 Fitness and Exercise
- 2 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 30 Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 42 Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 285 Motivation and Support
- 38 Challenges
- 2 Debate Club
- 475 Chit-Chat
- 1 Fun & Games
- 21 MyFitnessPal Information
- 9 News and Announcements
- Roadmap
- 6 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 6 MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions