Weight Loss Thread

Nutrition Facts and Analysis for Almond milk, Blue Diamond Unsweetened

I'm the wrong person to talk to about dairy. I think the "drink milk because it's the only good source of calcium" shtick is drummed up by the dairy farmers. I'm a total conspiracy theorist. And the fact that I don't think drinking the milk of an animal that is meant to fatten up its young to an eventual 2000lbs is healthy for human consumption. I don't know anything about feeding kids so I won't argue with you but there are plenty of other ways to get calcium.

I do love cheese though.

Keep in mind that is talking about ADDED sugars, not all sugar. So milk would be excepted from that.

The difference is the things he linked are talking about added sugars in things like breads or whatever, not naturally occurring sugars in things like fruit, milk, etc. The articles are basically saying "modern processed foods add sugar and that shit adds up, so limit that but maintain a well rounded diet consisting of naturally occurring sugars."

Really, this is the pertinent part:

The AHA statement, published in the journal Circulation, makes the point that added sugars, such as high-fructose corn syrup or ordinary table sugar added to sodas, breads, and other processed foods, are likely responsible for the increase in calorie consumption and the subsequent rise in obesity of the past few decades. Furthermore, people who have unhealthy sugar intake levels also consume lower levels of vital nutrients, such as zinc, iron, calcium, and vitamin A. And one study has suggested that too much sugar could raise blood pressure levels. The report also notes that over the past 30 years, we've consumed an average of 150 to 300 more calories per day than we used to, 50 percent of which come from beverages. And our physical activity levels remain unchanged, so those extra calories don't get burned off.

Click to expand...

It depends on if we are using "sugar" colloquially or technically. Technically any saccharide is a "sugar", but colloquially sugar means sucrose. The non-harmful daily dose of sucrose (or other fructose sweeteners) is very small. The number's Khane posted look similar to what I've seen in other places. However, that number is intended for the type of sugar found in "sweets" and less so for glucose or lactose (milk sugar).

As to milk, the evidence is extremely overwhelming that whole milk is beneficial to humans that have genes coding for lactase persistence. The calcium is important but it also has ?3 fatty acids, protein, phosphorus and vitamin K2. I was going to go through pub-med to find the studies, but luckily someone already did that for me. It is a page from the site I posted earlier,Calcium and Osteoporosis - Is Dairy Really Good For Your Bones?. I just found it today but is already one of my favorite nutrition sites.

You're misreading that chaos. They say that soda and bread by itself won't have sugar, but manufacturers add it to make it taste better. Their daily intake suggestions are for sugar period. Think about it, how would you know what portion of a juice drink is natural vs added sugar?

They are saying normal adult females should intake no more than 20g of sugar and males 36g of sugar. Not "Eat as many apples as you want but make sure you only drink 36g of sugar from soda on top of that". That really wouldn't make any sense at all.

Deathwing_sl said:

But what if I don't eat my apple(low in fiber, Denaut), can I have the equivalent amount of Coke now? Let's assume it's Jewish Coke so they're both fructose.

Click to expand...

I'm confused, apples have lots of fiber. Honestly not sure what you are getting at.

Khane_sl said:

You're misreading that chaos. They say that soda and bread by itself won't have sugar, but manufacturers add it to make it taste better. Their daily intake suggestions are for sugar period. Think about it, how would you know what portion of a juice drink is natural vs added sugar?

Click to expand...

No bro, you're the one misreading it. Everything they talk about references added sugars. Soda won't have sugar? You smokin crack?

They even specifically point out in the article not to avoid natural sugars:

Naturally occurring sugars in fruits, vegetables, low-fat dairy and whole grains don't need to be avoided, and make up part of a healthy diet, says lead author Rachel K. Johnson, PhD, MPH, RD, associate provost and professor of nutrition at the University of Vermont in Burlington.

...

The best way to cut added sugars out of your diet is to limit processed foods as much as possible, and satisfy your sweet tooth with fruit. Make a practice of this, and you won't need to spend so much time staring at food labels and counting sugar grams.

Click to expand...

Bottom line is minimize processed foods with added sugars.

Well shit. That doesn't really make much sense to me. And how are you supposed to know what's added when the labels only tell you total? I mean, if you HAVE to drink soda and juice and shit. Doesn't really affect me either way. And there is contradicting evidence from other studies such as the ones I've linked by Dr Ludwig that say too much sugar from fruits and things like milk is just as bad. Sugar is sugar.

Fuckin food science man... it's impossible to make heads or tails of some of this stuff.

Khane_sl said:

Well shit. That doesn't really make much sense to me. And how are you supposed to know what's added when the labels only tell you total? I mean, if you HAVE to drink soda and juice and shit. Doesn't really affect me either way. And there is contradicting evidence from other studies such as the ones I've linked by Dr Ludwig that say too much sugar from fruits and things like milk is just as bad. Sugar is sugar.

Fuckin food science man... it's impossible to make heads or tails of some of this stuff.

Click to expand...

They are talking about standard processed food practices like adding a ton of sugar to bread when it doesn't need to be there, or drinking sugary drinks or whatever. Stuff like that is what they are saying is responsible for modern obesity problems. Personally, I have a hard time believing that things like fruits or milk are bad for you in this way. I certainly don't limit my kids from drinking milk (to a point) or eating fruit.

Deathwing_sl said:

Yeah, that's what I meant earlier about the hunger assumption. It's basically indirectly blaming sugar. You can eat 100g of sugar and still cover your macro nutrients. I don't know about zinc since MFP doesn't track it, but I easily covered iron and calcium, came close on vitamin A, and way overdid vitamin C. This was Thanksgiving Day, so, no I don't eat 100g of sugar daily, but I will admit I overate by ~400 calories that day. I hope that overeating wasn't needed to cover the micros.

I think treating the public like idiots is part of the problem. If you have to sell low carb via cavemen, there's a larger problem. If you can't tell people specifically why sugar is a direct problem(what, heart disease, diabetes, and hunger aren't enough?), there's a larger problem.

Click to expand...

It's because a Calorie is not just a Calorie. We've gone over this on the boards many times, back and forth, some people refuse to accept this but that is where the evidence points. At this point there is lots of information out there, so you can read and make up your own mind. Here are some links for you:
6 Reasons Why a Calorie is NOT a Calorie
Amazon.com: Fat Chance: Beating the Odds Against Sugar, Processed Food, Obesity, and Disease eBook: Robert H. Lustig: Kindle Store

As to fruit specifically, this damn site has everything:
Is Fruit Good or Bad For Your Health? The Sweet Truth

Khane_sl said:

Well shit. That doesn't really make much sense to me. And how are you supposed to know what's added when the labels only tell you total? I mean, if you HAVE to drink soda and juice and shit. Doesn't really affect me either way. And there is contradicting evidence from other studies such as the ones I've linked by Dr Ludwig that say too much sugar from fruits and things like milk is just as bad. Sugar is sugar.

Fuckin food science man... it's impossible to make heads or tails of some of this stuff.

Click to expand...

You can't really, so you have to try and eat foods without a label. It sucks but it is the only way I've found so far. When the food labels were redesigned (in the 90s I think?) there was supposed to be a line item under carbohydrates for "Added Sugars" but the food industry got that nixed. Now you know why

Deathwing_sl said:

Great, what you said is basically what I had in parentheses, so thanks for agreeing with me? What am I refusing to accept?

Click to expand...

I misread, my apologies. I do agree with you. The reason eating healthy needs to be "sold" with gimmicks like paleo is that people are highly susceptible to marketing. It works too well, which is why agribusiness uses it so effectivelty. I think, sometimes, you need to fight fire with fire.

If you more questions about fruit, check out the link I posted in that paragraph.

I can't really understand why they draw the line there either. But that's because different doctors offer different evidence on whether that line should be drawn or not. It seems inconclusive at this point.

It is part of why the food industry lovesNutritionism. Food is pretty contextual, and still not a completely understood thing, especially when take it and put it through something as biochemically complex as a human. It seems to be the other properties of whole fruit that come along with the sugar that either mostly mitigate the effects of the fructose or are otherwise so healthful that they swamp the negative effects.

For example, if you took those grapes and juiced the fuck out of them, you would be left with "100% natural fruit juice" and it would be as bad for you as soda because the source of that sugar really doesn't matter much, just that it is concentrated and consumed alone in a liquid. That being said, modern seedless grapes are pretty surgery fruits, you can eat them fast and easily. My great Aunt had a grapevine growing on a trellis at her house that was planted by my great-grandfather I want to say like 100 years ago. Those tasted VERY different than modern grapes,farless sweet but much more tangy with a more fibrous texture and significantly thicker skin. I actually prefer them love to be able to buy grapes like that. Now, I'm not saying don't eat grapes, just that I know for a fact it is way easier to binge on them than many other fruits (I am guilty of this).