Guest guest Posted October 22, 2004 Report Share Posted October 22, 2004 They already do that with maltodextrin, maltose. I'm saying that quite possibly sugar is ok, and it's the radical consumption of corn syrup which now makes up most of the sweetener, that makes people obese. Some experts even call grains "sugar", when actually all veggies turn to glucose. So why demonize any food? They call anything sugar to demonize them. A notable CRONie said recently he considered avocado a high calorie food, when he in fact puts olive oil on his salad. The oil in avocado is very much like olive oil. Why is not oil considered an "empty calorie" food? The beliefs of nutritionists are incongruous. We need a lot more carbs than EFA's. Regards. ----- Original Message ----- From: Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 2:12 PM Subject: RE: [ ] suga Gee, that'll really clear it up for the general population... :-). Methinks you're "missing the forest for the trees". Sure there are subtle differences between the different "-ose", but there are common characteristics like high energy content/vs. low nutrition that is of interest to me. While perhaps true, arguing that some sugars are less bad does not make them good. These distinctions could even be used by the food marketers to give calorie junkies their sugar fix, with "good" sugar to make it OK. JR -----Original Message-----From: jwwright [mailto:jwwright@...]Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 12:07 PM Subject: Re: [ ] suga Hi , I think I could un-demonize "sugar" by pointing out most of those products don't have sugar in them. Corn syrup is another thing. Milk is lactose. I used to use 2 tsps of sugar to sweeten a cup of coffee. A soft drink will contain 130 kcals of corn compared to 35 kcals for sugar. In the presence of adequate glucose, fructose goes into fat. Also, sugar has to be digested and is not 100 on the GI scale. So one way they could un-demonize sugar is to not use the word sugar when talking about corn syrup. Regards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 22, 2004 Report Share Posted October 22, 2004 My personal philosophy is that foods are neither good or bad (except for evil transfats). It's all a matter of context. This thread was about the food industry and popular perceptions. I believe it's precisely these subtle differences that in the abstract drive many bad food decisions. KISS... a perception that all sugar is bad on balance is not the most dangerous misperception in circulation JR -----Original Message-----From: jwwright [mailto:jwwright@...]Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 2:56 PM Subject: Re: [ ] sugar or oil They already do that with maltodextrin, maltose. I'm saying that quite possibly sugar is ok, and it's the radical consumption of corn syrup which now makes up most of the sweetener, that makes people obese. Some experts even call grains "sugar", when actually all veggies turn to glucose. So why demonize any food? They call anything sugar to demonize them. A notable CRONie said recently he considered avocado a high calorie food, when he in fact puts olive oil on his salad. The oil in avocado is very much like olive oil. Why is not oil considered an "empty calorie" food? The beliefs of nutritionists are incongruous. We need a lot more carbs than EFA's. Regards. ----- Original Message ----- From: Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 2:12 PM Subject: RE: [ ] suga Gee, that'll really clear it up for the general population... :-). Methinks you're "missing the forest for the trees". Sure there are subtle differences between the different "-ose", but there are common characteristics like high energy content/vs. low nutrition that is of interest to me. While perhaps true, arguing that some sugars are less bad does not make them good. These distinctions could even be used by the food marketers to give calorie junkies their sugar fix, with "good" sugar to make it OK. JR -----Original Message-----From: jwwright [mailto:jwwright@...]Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 12:07 PM Subject: Re: [ ] suga Hi , I think I could un-demonize "sugar" by pointing out most of those products don't have sugar in them. Corn syrup is another thing. Milk is lactose. I used to use 2 tsps of sugar to sweeten a cup of coffee. A soft drink will contain 130 kcals of corn compared to 35 kcals for sugar. In the presence of adequate glucose, fructose goes into fat. Also, sugar has to be digested and is not 100 on the GI scale. So one way they could un-demonize sugar is to not use the word sugar when talking about corn syrup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 22, 2004 Report Share Posted October 22, 2004 In my perception, probably the worst thing they do is the amount of sugars added to children's cereal. And flavorings. I get a generic mini wheat, mainly for it's no sodium added - surprisingly still available in 2 stores. Post wheat 'n bran has nothing added but BHT. 1.5 gms fat 0 sat fat, 8 gms of fiber. What's the sense of adding the other stuff? - turns it into a cookie, but it lines the shelves. Some nutritionists don't like grains. What's a low fat person going to eat? I can only handle just so much lettuce/spinach. On the box it's advertising "reduce the risk of heart disease. 4 easy steps to reduce calories, lose weight and maintain a healthier heart: replace 2 meals a day with a serving {59gms} of any post healthy classics cereal, 1/2 cup fat-free milk and fruit. " "new clinical research conducted by a leading cardiologist shows that people who ate two bowls of post healthy classics each day as part of a reduced calorie diet, lost an average of 10# and reduced their risk factors for heart disease by ... decreasing blood pressure lowering triglycerides levels trimming waistlines" Pretty heady stuff. Sounds like a website. Well that's about what I eat, only it's mostly steamed brown rice, fruit and ffmilk, b.i.d. Regards. ----- Original Message ----- From: Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 4:24 PM Subject: RE: [ ] sugar or oil My personal philosophy is that foods are neither good or bad (except for evil transfats). It's all a matter of context. This thread was about the food industry and popular perceptions. I believe it's precisely these subtle differences that in the abstract drive many bad food decisions. KISS... a perception that all sugar is bad on balance is not the most dangerous misperception in circulation JR -----Original Message-----From: jwwright [mailto:jwwright@...]Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 2:56 PM Subject: Re: [ ] sugar or oil They already do that with maltodextrin, maltose. I'm saying that quite possibly sugar is ok, and it's the radical consumption of corn syrup which now makes up most of the sweetener, that makes people obese. Some experts even call grains "sugar", when actually all veggies turn to glucose. So why demonize any food? They call anything sugar to demonize them. A notable CRONie said recently he considered avocado a high calorie food, when he in fact puts olive oil on his salad. The oil in avocado is very much like olive oil. Why is not oil considered an "empty calorie" food? The beliefs of nutritionists are incongruous. We need a lot more carbs than EFA's. Regards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 22, 2004 Report Share Posted October 22, 2004 It's hard to reduce it to a single worst offense. I am uncomfortable with a new concept soft drink soft drink makers are trying in some third world countries. They borrowed this trick from the cereal guys where they add vitamins to sugar water to turn an otherwise neutral or so-so food into something presumably healthy. I'm not opposed to enriching staple foods for deficient populations, but come on... soda? Sound to me like behavior one step removed from pushing drugs. Regarding your cereal as medicine, I suspect most people losing 10# with or without Post cereal would improve their numbers. It's too easy for folks to connect the "eat Post cereal" with reduced heart risk, while discounting the lose 10# from reduced calories. Kind of like the dieters who consumed a can of meal replacement before each meal. JR -----Original Message-----From: jwwright [mailto:jwwright@...]Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 5:15 PM Subject: Re: [ ] sugar or oil In my perception, probably the worst thing they do is the amount of sugars added to children's cereal. And flavorings. I get a generic mini wheat, mainly for it's no sodium added - surprisingly still available in 2 stores. Post wheat 'n bran has nothing added but BHT. 1.5 gms fat 0 sat fat, 8 gms of fiber. What's the sense of adding the other stuff? - turns it into a cookie, but it lines the shelves. Some nutritionists don't like grains. What's a low fat person going to eat? I can only handle just so much lettuce/spinach. On the box it's advertising "reduce the risk of heart disease. 4 easy steps to reduce calories, lose weight and maintain a healthier heart: replace 2 meals a day with a serving {59gms} of any post healthy classics cereal, 1/2 cup fat-free milk and fruit. " "new clinical research conducted by a leading cardiologist shows that people who ate two bowls of post healthy classics each day as part of a reduced calorie diet, lost an average of 10# and reduced their risk factors for heart disease by ... decreasing blood pressure lowering triglycerides levels trimming waistlines" Pretty heady stuff. Sounds like a website. Well that's about what I eat, only it's mostly steamed brown rice, fruit and ffmilk, b.i.d. Regards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 23, 2004 Report Share Posted October 23, 2004 IMHO some of the worst offenders are the so-called nutrient drinks for elderly/frail and/or sickly folks such as Ensure. They add sweetners (in fact if you've ever tasted one of these they are overly sweet) and then a bunch of nutrients and call it a nutritious supplement. Many doctors recomment these. on 10/22/2004 6:48 PM, at crjohnr@... wrote: > It's hard to reduce it to a single worst offense. I am uncomfortable with a > new concept soft drink soft drink makers are trying in some third world > countries. They borrowed this trick from the cereal guys where they add > vitamins to sugar water to turn an otherwise neutral or so-so food into > something presumably healthy. I'm not opposed to enriching staple foods for > deficient populations, but come on... soda? Sound to me like behavior one > step removed from pushing drugs. > > Regarding your cereal as medicine, I suspect most people losing 10# with or > without Post cereal would improve their numbers. It's too easy for folks to > connect the " eat Post cereal " with reduced heart risk, while discounting the > lose 10# from reduced calories. Kind of like the dieters who consumed a can > of meal replacement before each meal. > > JR > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: jwwright [mailto:jwwright@...] > Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 5:15 PM > > Subject: Re: [ ] sugar or oil > > > In my perception, probably the worst thing they do is the amount of sugars > added to children's cereal. And flavorings. I get a generic mini wheat, > mainly for it's no sodium added - surprisingly still available in 2 stores. > Post wheat 'n bran has nothing added but BHT. 1.5 gms fat 0 sat fat, 8 gms > of fiber. > What's the sense of adding the other stuff? - turns it into a cookie, but > it lines the shelves. > > Some nutritionists don't like grains. > What's a low fat person going to eat? I can only handle just so much > lettuce/spinach. > On the box it's advertising " reduce the risk of heart disease. > 4 easy steps to reduce calories, lose weight and maintain a healthier > heart: > replace 2 meals a day with a serving {59gms} of any post healthy classics > cereal, 1/2 cup fat-free milk and fruit. " > " new clinical research conducted by a leading cardiologist shows that > people who ate two bowls of post healthy classics each day as part of a > reduced calorie diet, lost an average of 10# and reduced their risk factors > for heart disease by ... > decreasing blood pressure > lowering triglycerides levels > trimming waistlines " > > Pretty heady stuff. > Sounds like a website. > > Well that's about what I eat, only it's mostly steamed brown rice, fruit > and ffmilk, b.i.d. > > Regards. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 23, 2004 Report Share Posted October 23, 2004 Hi All, While being treated for anorexia nervosa, they gave me Ensure and it does taste like a milk shake plus loads of extra sugar and off- tasting vitamins etc. Cheers, Al. > IMHO some of the worst offenders are the so-called nutrient drinks for > elderly/frail and/or sickly folks such as Ensure. They add sweetners (in > fact if you've ever tasted one of these they are overly sweet) and then a > bunch of nutrients and call it a nutritious supplement. Many doctors > recomment these. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.