When I hit a size 16, I figured I needed to do something about my weight. So I started keeping a food journal this week.
My calories are a little high, my fat's at the upper limits of the RDA, my fiber could be a little higher, but my sugar is a problem.
I averaged 88 grams of sugar in the last five days. Two of those days I was over 100 grams.
My biggest problem is that it's the foods I thought were healthy that are loaded with sugar. My cereal is 12 g of sugar. My raisin, date, and walnut oatmeal is 13 g of sugar. One of my trail mix bars is 8 g sugar while the other shocked me with 11 g sugar.
But the worst offender? My turkey, cornbread stuffing, and baked apple Lean Cuisine lunch. 27 g of sugar in one lunch.
So I have two questions.
1. The FDA recommends keeping refined sugar intake under 40 g a day. Do I get to cut myself some slack for the natural sugars in my milk and fruit? If so how would I even begin to figure out how much of my sugar is good and how much is bad?
2. Can anyone suggest some easy foods that will get me my fiber without being loaded with sugar? My reduced sugar oatmeal and some of my soups are about the only things that didn't disgust me to see on paper.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
Try to cut high fructose corn syrup. Which is, of course, permeated in just about every processed food imaginable, including cereal, granola bars, and instant oatmeal. Try making oatmeal from rolled oats instead of the packets (it'll taste better anyway) and adding your own fruit to it. Make your own granola with rolled oats, nuts, etc, and add your own sweetness so that the serving size has the right amount (I usually use some honey when I make granola, and roast it all in the oven. Mmmmm...).
And most of all, instead of lean cuisine, try making your own meals. Get a crock pot if you don't have time, there's even another thread on lots of ways to make crock pot meals.
This will be a little bit more work than the easy access foods you're used to, but they'll be cheaper and better for you.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
Also, I've heard fruit juices can raise your blood sugar way more than just fruit (Because the sugars are so refined), so try to stick with your daily fruits in whole form: apples, oranges, grapes, etc. The natural sugars will be checked with the other stuff fruit has (fiber and the like), which will keep it in check.
Posted by krynn (Member # 524) on :
ive been a diabetic for a while now and some girls i know were jealous that i ate so healthy, and i told them to look up some diabetic-healthy diets online. that was like 2 years ago. they've lost weight. one thing i would say about some of the stuff you've listed, is a lot of them seem to be from the grains food group. of course those are all the carbohydrates. eh, just some suggestions.
quote:Originally posted by sarcasticmuppet: Also, I've heard fruit juices can raise your blood sugar way more than just fruit
this is very true. you can say the same for grapes and other fruits that are just mostly juice inside. strawberries are great cuz they arent that juicy and they have a good amount of fiber, as far as fruits are concerned. fruit juice can be healthy, but is usually loaded with sugars/carbs. for a diabetic it makes it really hard to have stuff like that and still eat a normal sized meal.
things you might want to google are Carb Counting and portion size. being able to eye foods and guesstimate about how many carbs are in it is a pretty good skill. just reading the health labels of your favorite foods or looking them up in indexes if it is something from a restaurant can help a lot.
Posted by Cerridwen (Member # 11763) on :
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader:
So I have two questions.
1. The FDA recommends keeping refined sugar intake under 40 g a day. Do I get to cut myself some slack for the natural sugars in my milk and fruit? If so how would I even begin to figure out how much of my sugar is good and how much is bad?
2. Can anyone suggest some easy foods that will get me my fiber without being loaded with sugar? My reduced sugar oatmeal and some of my soups are about the only things that didn't disgust me to see on paper.
I personally wouldn't worry about milk. There are too many benefits to dairy (so long as you are not lactose intolerant) - bone health, teeth, good source of protein, etc.
Fruits are also very good for you and a quick and easy source of fiber. Fruits not only give you the needed vitamins and energy to get through the day but if you keep the skins on you get the bonus of fiber. I believe 4-5 pieces a day is what is recommended.
I would also add some nuts to the mix - they have good fats, vitamins, proteins and fiber. I believe almonds have a high amount of fiber.
I think the problem that many of us run to, myself included, is the easy-to-reach-for-processed-foods. We really don't need them, they're just convenient. But these are the big culprits of refined sugars that our bodies just don't need. So, the more meals that you can make on your own the better.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
There's where some more of my confusion comes in. Let's use my breakfast cereal as an example. I eat about 2 servings (cup and a half) of Kashi Honey Sunshine some mornings. It's 200 calories, 12 g of fiber, and 12 g of sugar. But they use evaporated cane juice and honey as their sweeteners instead of the corn syrup.
Some of what I've read suggests that the unrefined cane juice takes longer to break down and that the disaccaride of the honey doesn't hit the blood stream the same way as refined monosaccarides. I also knew that fiber worked the same way.
So is my cereal still bad for me because it's loaded with sugar, or is it not as bad for me because it's not corn syrup and it's tempered with fiber?
And how does my half cup of milk with its 6g of sugars factor in? [Edit to add] Just saw Cerridwen's post. Not worrying about the milk does seem easier. Posted by Cerridwen (Member # 11763) on :
A small banana - 12 g sugar A small apple - 15 g sugar
Since the recommendation is to have 4-5 pieces of fruit a day, that would come out to more than the 40 g of sugar limit. And this isn't even including vegetables which also include natural sugars and that should be part of one's daily diet.
So, that 40 g limit must mean refined sugars, otherwise I'm in big trouble too! Posted by EmpSquared (Member # 10890) on :
I have to second the recommendation for not eating lean cuisines, or any of the meals that compare. They're expensive in the long run even if you buy them on special at the store, and most of them are relatively high in saturated fat and (as you said) sugars. They're pretty terrible for you, they're just low calorie so they're masqueraded as health food.
For food that isn't low on taste and decently high in fiber, just make some stir fry with brown rice and low sodium soy sauce. Make it in huge portions and divide it into separate meals to save cash.
Also, a cereal like Total is so ridiculously high in fiber and packed with nutrients, it's just plain.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
Yer 16?
...Whats the problem with sugar?
I eat chocolate every day...
Posted by aiua (Member # 7825) on :
I was curious, so I checked out what I've been eating..
My regular strawberry yoplait yogurt lists 27g of sugar... That *can't* be right.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
Dude, yoplait is MOSTLY high fructose corn syrup Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Yep, and it doesn't have live cultures either.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Yoplait is evil. It's comparable to soda as far as sugar per ounce. It doesn't even taste like yogurt.
But, Avid, you have to remember that as far as sugar goes the whole point is that refined sugars offer calories without any other nutrition. People aren't usually aware that the nutrition required in order to be optimally healthy is actually somewhat difficult to get everyday, and many people in this country that are overweight are actually malnourished, in terms of vitamins and nutrients.
People who eat too many convenience foods are getting many calories but few nutrients. Refined sugars play a huge part in this. You shouldn't be as concerned about sugar, in and of itself, as you are about eating enough fruits, vegetables, and whole grains (and dairy, to a lesser degree) to meet your daily nutritional needs. The USDA suggests that a person get a minimum of five servings of fruits and veggies a day, but they actually say that nine is preferable. Heck, I'm a vegetarian and I still find it difficult to get between five and nine servings of fruits and veg per day. They also suggest at least six servings of grains, at least half of which are whole grains. Now, the USDA has a margin built in, but you can see that if the average person ate anywhere near what they suggest in those food groups, they would barely have room to squeeze the recommended dairy and meat. If you actually did that, you would find that you were getting most of your calories in a day without consuming much refined sugar at all, and you'd see that there really isn't room in a healthy diet for that sugar without just packing in calories (and, consequently, pounds) that you don't need. That's the biggest reason why they so strongly suggest that we eat so few refined sugars (and grains). They give calories, but that's all. And your body, which is "starving" despite the extra calories you are eating, will continue to crave the nutrients you need, and you will continue to eat.
ETA (I'm tired, so this will be very brief):
quote: Some of what I've read suggests that the unrefined cane juice takes longer to break down and that the disaccaride of the honey doesn't hit the blood stream the same way as refined monosaccarides. I also knew that fiber worked the same way.
They don't work the same way as fiber. Fiber cannot be broken down into glucose in the human body because we don't synthesis the enzyme that does the job (cellulase). As far as mono- versus disaccharides, yes, the monosaccharides do enter the bloodstream first, because they can begin to be converted into glucose and absorbed into the bloodstream immediately upon ingestion (in the mouth). Disaccharides, I believe, are converted in the small intestine, and so therefore "hit the bloodstream" later. But eventually you will still have an insulin spike. It may take longer for some foods to be converted into glucose and transported into the bloodstream, but these are the foods that cause an insulin spike for a longer period of time. The biggest problem with eating food that converts to glucose quickly is that it will be gone quickly, leaving you still hungry and low on energy.
If you're really curious, here is a basic list of mono- and disaccharides:
Mono: glucose: the sugar present in our blood fructose: found in (for example) honey, fruits, and vegetables galactose: found in milk (it is a monosaccharide bonded with glucose in lactose)
Di: sucrose: table sugar maltose: related to digestion of starch lactose: milk
There are also polysaccharides, like starch. But at any rate, you can see that honey, for example, actually breaks down and enters the bloodstream more quickly than plain old table sugar. So does fruit juice.
But, ultimately, all sugar that you ingest will eventually cause your insulin to spike, and insulin is the main hormone responsible for storing glucose as fat. So when you eat too much sugar, it will very likely be stored as fat. In fact, it's more likely to be stored than the fat in a steak if the steak is eaten with no carbohydrates, because the steak will not cause much insulin to be released.
I hope this isn't making it sound like I think sugar or insulin are inherently bad. I'm just trying to explain the process.
And for the record, "unrefined cane juice" is just unevaporated white sugar. So, yeah, it will take a little longer to be converted to glucose than, say, honey, but not any longer than regular sugar.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that if you're trying to lose weight worrying about what type of sugar you are adding to your food is much less important than just creating a calorie deficit by eating less processed crap and exercising more.
[ October 13, 2008, 03:16 AM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Thanks, PSI. It's hard to tell what out of the piles of advice out there is any good. Especially since most people who put the info out are trying to sell you something.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
No kidding. I feel that way all the time. I've gotten to a point where I'm wary of all information because it all has an agenda. If you hear that fish is good for pregnant women, you will inevitably find that the studies done that yielded that result were paid for by some huge fish corporation. Half the time I'm wondering what kind of corruption has occurred in the USDA. I'm a bit paranoid, to say the least.
A good book to read to help you understand our bodies' relationship to glucose is Dr. Bernstein's "Diabetes Solution". Obviously you'd have to read it with the eye of someone who, you know, makes insulin, and the guy obviously has something of an anti-carb bias, but the information in it is invaluable. Check it out.
I wanted to rephrase my last statement to make it more clear. I'm working on about four hours of sleep. "Diabetes Solution" could easily make you tempted to avoid carbs altogether. The low-carb diet he prescribes is somewhat extreme even for a diabetic. I'm not trying to suggest that anyone adopt it.
[ October 13, 2008, 10:38 AM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by ladyday (Member # 1069) on :
I thought the rule was 5 fruits and vegetables a day - I might be dating myself with that though :X.
There are a lot of foods that are just so darn good for you that I don't worry about the sugar content. Like blueberries. And spinach. *flexes like popeye* I usually put things like carrot sticks, nuts and fruit in separate containers/baggies when I get home from the grocery store, because I'm too lazy/bleary eyed to do more than grab a few things and throw them into a bag in the morning, but I like fresh stuff.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
The low-carb diet he prescribes is somewhat extreme even for a diabetic.
The reason so many humans get diabetes is iis because we are not really genetically designed for the high-carb diet that civilization offers us. Historically, we are meat eaters, largely, with some fruits-and-veggies thrown in there. Fish/shellfish we added about 20,000 years ago, relatively recently, which explains the widspread shellfish allergies, although I love my shrimp/scallops. Grains and refined sugars are really recent, maybe as recently as 10,000 years ago. We haven't had sufficient tiem to adapt to those foods in the amounts that we try to eat them in. In some cases, like the Eskimo and some other Native American groups, they never really started eating a grainy/carby diet at all, until the last 100 years or so. That's why diabetes is so rampant in some of those groups today. The only real "exception" to this rule would be the East Asians, who have developed a much larger pancreas and larger salivary glands to deal with their grain-heavy diet. Even so, they are much shorter than if they ate more animal products. The average American-born Chiense kid is something like 8 inches taller than his parents who were raised in China.
It would probably be possible for humans to become adapted to the high-grain/high-sugar diet eventually. Some people can hack it a lot better than others, as witnessed by the fact that some familes have absolutely no diabetes. My entire extended family of several hundred people is completely diabetes-free, on both parents' side. They don't eat well, but they just don't get diabetes, period. Heart disease, yes, strokes, yes, but diabetes and cancer, pretty much none at all. Their lack of cancer is almost weird. None of them have ever died of it, ever. It makes me glad I did search for my birthfamilies when I turned 18. It's nice to know what you're in for, medically.
Another point I'd like to make is that humans historically have eaten 50-80% fat by percentage of total calories, depending on the environment, and were in excellent health. You do have to pick your good fats. That's a whole other topic. I'm not saying that you can't survive and be healthy on 30-40% fat, but it depends on your genetics. I've been playing around with high-fat, low-carb diets for about a year and half now, and also reading what a lot of high-fat, low-carbers say online in the process of their experiments with it. Some people seem to really need 70-80% fat, to really be at their best. Others do fine with as little as 40-50%. This is anecdotal, but it does seem to match with the fat percentages of native diets as well, which did usually (and still do) vary from about 40-80%.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: The reason so many humans get diabetes
I assume you are only talking about Type II diabetes? Type I is not [edit: primarily] triggered by diet -- the insulin-producing cells in the pancreas die off due to autoimmune problems.
[ October 13, 2008, 08:23 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Thanks, rivka. FTR, The diabetes I was referring to in my post was type 1.
quote: There are a lot of foods that are just so darn good for you that I don't worry about the sugar content.
Exactly. It's really hard to get too many calories if you're eating fruit and veg, anyway. You'll be full before then.
[ October 13, 2008, 01:06 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"I assume you are only talking about Type II diabetes? Type I is not triggered by diet -- the insulin-producing cells in the pancreas die off due to autoimmune problems."
Which are themselves diet-related. I can provide links. Would you like some?
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Dear lord, I hope we're not going to get into this again.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I'm not about to back down from the point that both types of diabetes are dependent on diet to be activated. Genetic tendencies cannot, in and of themselves, bring on either type.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: Which are themselves diet-related. I can provide links.
From peer-reviewed journals?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
But they're not needed. Think about it.
1. Juvenile-onset diabetes is fairly widespread, among many populations.
2. Juvenile-onset diabetes is often fatal without treatment, and indeed was fatal prior to the discovery of modern treatments. Fatal, that is, prior to adulthood.
3. Juvenile-onset diabetes is at least partially genetic.
It's not realistic to say that a disease with a significant inherited component that often kills the person before puberty is entirely inherited. If it were, it wouldn't HAVE a genetic component, unless the mutation just keeps happening over and over in different places and times, and it doesn't. It's a common genetic problem, and it shows up in populations all over the world. The disease has a genetic tendency that has to be activated via environment to fully develop. Diabetes simply isn't a problem among groups of people eating their traditional diets. When they switch to eating lots of refined carbs, they start getting it. It's no great huge leap to assume that a disease of the body's ability to regulate blood sugar would be correlated with eating sugars/carbs in unnatural/refined form.
But I'll dig up some links. Yes, some of them will probably be from the Weston Price foundation site. Do you have a problem with that?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Stene LC, Ulriksen J, Magnus P, Joner G. Use of cod liver oil during pregnancy associated with lower risk of Type I diabetes in the offspring. Diabetologia 2000;43:1093-8.
Hypponen, E. Laara, E. Reunanen, A. Jarvelin, M. R. Virtanen, S. M. "Intake of vitamin D and risk of type 1 diabetes: a birth-cohort study," The Lancet, 2001; 358: 1500-03.
Here is the summary of the second study:
" A group of researchers led by Elina Hypponen published a landmark study in The Lancet in 2001 suggesting that intakes of vitamin D over 2000 IU per day in infancy may be able to nearly eradicate type 1 diabetes.24 The study began in Finland in 1966 when over 10,000 infants were enrolled and researchers recorded whether they were supplemented with the then-official recommendation of 2000 IU per day of vitamin D for the first year of life, more than this amount, less than this amount, or were not supplemented at all. They then followed the study participants for over 30 years until 1997, recording which of the participants were diagnosed with type 1 diabetes by that time and which were not.
The benefit associated with vitamin D occurred at the lowest and highest levels of vitamin D intake and at all points measured in between. Children who developed rickets were 2.6 times as likely to develop type 1 diabetes compared to children who did not develop rickets. Compared to infants who did not receive a supplement of vitamin D at all, those who supplemented regularly, most but not all of whom supplemented with 2000 IU per day or more, had an 88 percent reduced risk of type 1 diabetes. Out of those who supplemented regularly, those who received the dose of 2000 IU per day had a further reduced risk of 78 percent compared to those who received a lower dose. Those who received a dose higher than 2000 IU per day had an 86 percent reduced risk compared to those who received a lower dose. Thus, vitamin D administered during infancy appears to exert a powerful protection against type 1 diabetes in amounts that extend from those just sufficient to prevent rickets to those exceeding 2000 IU."
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I don't think anyone disputes that many factors can contribute to type 1 diabetes. Diet may play a part in that. One study I'm thinking of suggested that diabetes might be triggered by antibodies against the protein in cow's milk. But if it were found to be true, it would be one tiny piece of a huge puzzle. The causes of diabetes are so widely debated and so poorly understood at this point that for you to sound so sure that you know what you're talking about makes me think that you've actually done a lot less research than you'd like us to believe.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"The causes of diabetes are so widely debated and so poorly understood"
Isolated groups of people to this day who can't get access to overly processed foods are pretty much entirely without diabetes, and most of our other killers like heart disease, stroke, etc. I agree that the true causes of Type I diabetes are not perfectly understood. However, it's pretty clear that, if you're eating a diet that you're not genetically suited for, you're much more likely to get it. In addition, it's also clear that a diet that has insufficient Vitamins A and D is also a major culprit, as shown by my studies above. Blame the pharmaceutical and food-processing companies, etc. if you don't read more studies like those above. Extra Vitamins D & A aren't a patentable idea, and, if the population at large really got a hold of that info, they'd probably stop buying overly processed carbs, etc. as much. Certain companies would start to see their bottom line eroded. ONOZ! LOL
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: Isolated groups of people to this day who can't get access to overly processed foods are pretty much entirely without diabetes, and most of our other killers like heart disease, stroke, etc.
Dude, it's so hard to make statements like that about isolated groups and diabetes. So many undeveloped nations don't even know enough about the disease to diagnose it. Do you know what diabetes 1 would look like in an area like that? A little kid would mysteriously start losing weight, and, along with a few other symptoms that would largely go overlooked, he or she would continue to lose it until they died. There's a really good chance no one would ever know the cause. Even in America, diabetes 1 frequently goes undiagnosed until the child is really ill and must be hospitalized.
But I must be off. It's my birthday and it's time to open the presents I picked out. Ciao! Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: It's not realistic to say that a disease with a significant inherited component that often kills the person before puberty is entirely inherited.
Sure it is. Did you want a list of such diseases? (Tay Sachs is the textbook example, but there are many others.) Ever heard of recessive genes?
I looked up the actual study (which is somewhat out of date, since there are dozens of related studies in the past 7 years). Yes, getting enough vitamin D did lead to a small (but probably statistically significant, although the sample size was not very large) decrease in the rate of type I diabetes.
I'm still not sure what that has to do with your original assertion about carbs, though.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
*points up*
What rivka said.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"I'm still not sure what that has to do with your original assertion about carbs, though."
The processed-carb/grain diet is significantly lower in vitamins D and A (and by vitamin A, I do mean retinol, the most bioavailable form) than the traditional diets it replaces. We really are meat-eaters. The fact that the most grain-dependent societies, the East Asian societies, have developed a larger pancreas and larger salivary glands to deal with the extra carbs is pretty damning evidence that we are not yet fully evolved to easily eat such a diet.
I'm not saying that you can't supplement retinol and vitamin D-3, cholecalciferol, as well as calcium, magnesium, and probably vitamin K, and the B-vitamins as well, and still get pretty good results. However, it helps to know what you are doing with that, otherwise you'll just clog up the sewage system with undigested pills, or overdo it and screw yourself up. Been there, done that. The supplements out there vary greatly in quality, and even when you get good ones, you need to know how much to take. You also need to take them in concert, because they balance each other. Finally, you still need a pretty high-fat diet, and choosing good fats is a whole other thread/book/encyclopedia. If you think choosing good fats is simple, you haven't done your research. I say this because I've heard the "oh, I just take a multi and eat my EVOO, because that's all I need" quite a bit, and from people here, specifically. Banna, I'm talking to you.
Sure it is. Did you want a list of such diseases? (Tay Sachs is the textbook example, but there are many others.) Ever heard of recessive genes?
Did you seriously compare Tay-Sachs to diabetes? OK, look, (and I'm trying to say this delicately) Tay-Sachs is a result of...extreme...genetic...OK. I really don't know how to nicely say "your family tree doesn't fork", but that's the situation. It's a disease of Eastern European Jewry, and that's pretty much it. Diabetes shows up everywhere. It's ubiquitous, and is only non-selected for if the diet allows it. I'm not trying to bust the Jews, they've given us more than their share of great scientists, musicians, entertainers, etc., so forgive me if that's how it's come across.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Um, actually, Tay-Sachs is also prevalent in French Canadians, Creoles from Louisiana, a certain South African tribe, and, um, I think there's one more.
A better comparison for the point she was making though might be phenylketonuria, which, while more prevalent in some populations than others (as are type I and II diabetes), occurs in all populations and is also autosomal recessive.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
A ubiquitous disease means that the het version has a strong advantage.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Take a look--it's time to start giving yourself and your kids a Vitamin D supplement.
Also, the Vitamin D Council has some thoughts on supplementation, to the tune of about 5,000 IU daily.
Google "sewage treatment pills clog supplements" (without the quotation marks) to see why you should take the liquid or softgel forms of supplements. I'm quite serious. You're not digesting those tablets, peeps.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
The AAP has recommended upping the recommended vit. D supplement; however, that recommendation doesn't take into account that sun exposure without sunscreen or protective clothing, with bare arms and face, 15 minutes 3 or 4 times a week, can provide most of that amount.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
What kq said. I also wonder if they're considering the Vitamin D (and A) in fortified milk and cereals? I would think it would be difficult to not get enough Vitamin D these days, or is rickets running rampant and I just missed it?
I've never lost sleep over Vitamin D. My kids and I are outside for a couple hours a day. I'm more concerned with the fact that I don't use sunscreen as often as I should. Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Traditional tribes generally get/got several thousand IU of Vitamin D daily.
"I would think it would be difficult to not get enough Vitamin D these days, or is rickets running rampant and I just missed it?"
You just missed it. There's no shame in that, you simply haven't done the research. Take a look at The Vitamin D Council. They postulate that subclinical rickets is a widespread chronic disease. They've got some pretty persuasive articles and studies.
I don't recommend getting your vitamins from cereal and pasteurized, homogenized milk. That's like feeding a champion racehorse substandard feed, pointless. Cereal is nasty stuff, I don't recommend it as a regular food. Don't get me started on the pasteurized, homogenized milk. Cereal and crappy milk are an easy copout forced on us by the problems of modern living. There are ways around these things.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Actually, PSI, they say that most kids don't now get enough supplemented foods to get enough Vit. D in that manner. For instance, your kids would have to drink 4 cups of fortified milk a day to get enough from milk alone.
But if you're outside a lot I think you should be fine.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"But if you're outside a lot I think you should be fine."
You might want to read my links before you go giving medical advice.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I'm not giving medical advice.
I'm echoing what I have been told by several qualified pediatricians.
Posted by Temposs (Member # 6032) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: Cereal and crappy milk are an easy copout forced on us by the problems of modern living. There are ways around these things.
steven, it really depends on the quality of cereal. Sure, the most popular cereals sold today are worthless nutritionally, but it is possible to find cereals of excellent quality with dried fruit, seeds, nuts, multiple whole grains integrated, and not very much sugar.
I don't think the tradition of cereal and milk is a bad thing. You just need to make sure you're getting the highest quality available.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
What is wrong with my milk?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: Actually, PSI, they say that most kids don't now get enough supplemented foods to get enough Vit. D in that manner. For instance, your kids would have to drink 4 cups of fortified milk a day to get enough from milk alone.
*nod* A couple of things about that: Yes, one serving of milk is 25% of the daily value. One serving of Cheerios is 10%. But my 7-year-old son, for example, never eats just one serving. When he has Cheerios for breakfast (which is literally about two or three times a month; Cheerios is a special treat at our house because a bowl of cereal with milk is too expensive for the calories and nutrition it yields, IMO) he eats two or three large bowls in one sitting. That amounts to about 4-5 servings. Even my 5-year-old daughter eats two or more adult servings in one sitting. And this may be a generalization, but it seems to me that low-income kids or kids with parents who never cook fresh food are the ones most likely to eat cereal regularly.
It may be that most kids don't get enough fortified foods to get all the Vitamin D that they need in that manner alone, but I would hope that the average child would go outside once a day for at least a few minutes. Do they no longer have recess in the elementary schools? I'm not proposing that a child get all the D they need from milk and cereal. I'm proposing that they have a lifestyle that includes a varied, healthy diet and moderate exercise. Now, I'd be willing to concede that most children don't get that, but I think at that point they have a much bigger problem than Vitamin D deficiency alone.
quote:Originally posted by steven: "But if you're outside a lot I think you should be fine."
You might want to read my links before you go giving medical advice.
Dude, your Vitamin D council link says that 20-30 minutes in the sun yields more vitamin D than a person needs per day. Is that the link you're talking about? Because if you don't agree with their claims you might not want to use them to assert yours.
quote: I don't recommend getting your vitamins from cereal and pasteurized, homogenized milk. That's like feeding a champion racehorse substandard feed, pointless. Cereal is nasty stuff, I don't recommend it as a regular food.
I didn't plan on responding to this, but as it seems that you are talking to me directly, I will, briefly. Don't make the mistake of judging my family's diet/lifestyle; you don't know us at all. But if you're planning on it, I suggest you go back and read the other comments I made in this thread. They should shed at least a little light.
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
"You just need to make sure you're getting the highest quality available."
Like Crunch Berries. Tasty AND good for you... Especially the ones with different color berries...
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"a bowl of cereal with milk is too expensive for the calories and nutrition it yields, IMO)"
How do you do this calculation, out of curiosity? I'd agree with you that you're probably paying a lot for the calories, but it seems like some cereals pack quite a lot of nutriotional value in terms of vitamins and minerals
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
For us, at least, it's the milk. We tend to buy organic milk and it's usually around $6 a gallon. A few cereals can be a good deal, but once you add the milk, it gets really expensive. I discovered this once when my grandmother was visiting. She likes to spoil the kids (and my husband) when she visits by buying them a lot of cereal. We knocked out an entire $3 box of cereal (I think it was 14 oz.) and most of a $6 gallon of milk between the five of us that morning, and we were all hungry an hour later. A 14 oz. box of Cheerios, for example, only has 1400 calories. If you include the recommended serving of milk with each bowl, it adds 40 calories per serving, for a total of 1960 calories per box. That came to just under 400 calories per person. That's about a fifth of our average calorie needs, at twice what I normally pay per meal. I'd rather they got closer to 600 calories at breakfast, although I'm rarely anal enough to count my kids' calories; I just feed them until they stop eating. I usually spend about $5 a meal (averaged between all three meals; snacks are separate) with most of that money going to fresh/frozen produce and with breakfast being the least expensive, so that really threw me off for the whole day, in my mental calculations. I'm not anti-cereal. We have it every once in a while when I'm feeling lazy, and sometimes I'll put some Cheerios or Bran Flakes in a ziploc bag for a snack in the car. As an actual meal replacer, though, it's fairly worthless. But that's why I added the IMO at the end. I realize that my nutritional goals and budgeting may be very different than those of another person. But even if you assume someone is buying regular milk at $3-3.50 per gallon, it's still much more than I'd like to pay for the calories. To get 500-600 calories, I can offer my family oatmeal, a small omelette with green peppers, fresh fruit, and a glass of milk, and spend $3. If I could only get vitamins from cereal, I might think it was worth it, but in my family we eat plenty of vitamin-rich foods that are cheaper and less processed.
This is also the major reason we are vegetarian. I refuse to buy/eat meat from factory farms and anything else would be too expensive, when I can get those nutrients elsewhere and have more money to spend on fresh produce, which is also fairly expensive. But one day I may have my dream farm and then I can go back to eating meat occasionally. It all comes down to budget and nutritional priorities, I guess.
/long-windedness
quote: I'd agree with you that you're probably paying a lot for the calories
I just realized you had already agreed with me about cost, which renders two-thirds or more of my post useless. Oh well.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
This might be more like what you were looking for:
Cereal versus Other Foods: A Nutritional Analysis by Me, While Eating a Cupcake
One serving of oatmeal has 1 gram more soluble fiber than Cheerios, which is Cheerios' main claim to fame. Most cereals have no soluble fiber. It also has 5 grams of protein to Cheerios' 3, and has twice as much polyunsaturated fat. Oatmeal costs about 20 cents per serving.
One baby carrot has about twice as much vitamin A as a serving of Cheerios. It would cost about five cents.
Most dark green veggies contain comparable amounts of iron to Cheerios (depending on which studies you read), although it is non-heme iron. I'm not sure what kind of iron is added to Cheerios; I'll have to look that up. But most Americans aren't me; they are eating more red meat than they need, and so have plenty of bio-available iron.
The sun provided more Vitamin D and it's free! African Americans have a harder time getting it from the sun, however.
And so on. All of the nutrients that are added to Cheerios can be found in other food sources, food sources that should be a part of every American's diet. Cereal is probably the only thing keeping many low-income kids from being even more malnourished than they are, because I think the vitamins in fortified cereal may be the only vitamins they get.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Dried beans are an excellent source of iron. Dried apricots are a good source as well. We don't eat a lot of red meat but those are regular parts of our diet. Posted by cmc (Member # 9549) on :
PSI Teleport... Can I come over for breakfast tomorrow morning??? : )
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: Dried beans are an excellent source of iron. Dried apricots are a good source as well.
They are both non-heme sources, but there are ways around that. However, iron is the one nutrient I worry about. The requirements for a vegetarian are at least twice the requirements for someone who eats meat occasionally, since plant iron is so poorly absorbed. We take an iron supplement, but that isn't my preferred method, and I'm currently researching and trying to find a better way to get enough iron.
quote: PSI Teleport... Can I come over for breakfast tomorrow morning???
Sure. I'll put a leaf in the table. Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I do supplement my iron, since even with an iron-rich diet and a supplement I tend to be low enough on iron that the Red Cross won't take my blood (not clinically anemic, but borderline.)
I have heard that Floradix is a great way to keep iron up and is better absorbed. I haven't tried it yet though (haven't been to Whole Foods, nearest place that carries it, since we had that discussion.)
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I've considered switching to cast-iron pans, but I sort of hate them. I know, I'm probably the only one. But just try lifting a cast-iron dutch oven when you are pregnant. That's enough to create animosity for life.
And I'll check out Floradix. Thanks for that. Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I love my cast iron but the lifting does get to me, so I rarely use them.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
And the re-seasoning... sigh. But I do love my cast iron.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I'm the traitor in my family. They all swear by cast-iron (cast iron?) and bought me a ton of it when I got married. It...disappeared all on its own, I swear!
But I was nineteen then and a lot less patient. Maybe I'll just buy one piece to start and see how it goes.
ETA: Exactly, the seasoning! That's why I don't use my wok as often as I could. That, and I have an electric stove. Fie!
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
It won't help keep iron up, but if you like cooking with cast iron and don't like the weight, check out Calphalon One's Infused Anodized line. They're wonderful pieces of cookware, with many of the good properties of cast iron.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I have a hammered iron wok from Singapore that I use when I'm making an absolute ton of stir-fry.
But it is a pain with my electric. I need a diffuser ring.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I don't know what a diffuser ring is, although I can make an educated guess. All I have is a metal ring that holds my pan above the burner. If that's what you are talking about, then they don't give much better results.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Like that.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Oh, I see. It's not just for woks, then. That looks handy.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Yep.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"Dude, your Vitamin D council link says that 20-30 minutes in the sun yields more vitamin D than a person needs per day."
IIRC, no, unless the person is pale-skinned, naked, and in a place that is not currently in a "Vitamin D winter." You didn't read carefully, and I don't what I can do to make you read carefully.
Oh, and dried fruit is absolutely not a healthy food. In small amounts, it's no great evil, but to act like it's some kind of health food is quite wrong-headed. Every raw vegan I know has made themselves really sick on dried fruit. That includes me. If you want to know the difference between the health benefits of fresh versus dried fruit, talk to people who have tried to live largely on each. I am one of those people, and everybody here needs to be aware that dried fruit is just not a healthy food, unless you are comparing it to yellow heart-shaped marshmallows, or some shit. LOL
The only acceptable cereals are freshly ground. By the time it's been ground, formed into flakes/puffs, bagged, boxed, shipped, and put on the shelf, the nutrients in it have undergone serious changes, none of them good. I'd also like to get back to one of my earlier points, which is that fat is the single most useful calorie source. Grains are relatively low-fat, even oats.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
You're coming across a little extreme, there, steven.
Dried fruit might make people sick because they eat too much due to the low water content (and therefore bulk).
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Um. I think everyone is aware that fresh fruit is healthier than dried. What does that have to do with anything?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"Um. I think everyone is aware that fresh fruit is healthier than dried. What does that have to do with anything?"
I wasn't the one who brought it up. I was reacting to PSI Teleport's assertion that dried fruit was an indicator of a "healthy" cereal.
I seriously jacked up my health on dried fruit. I felt weak, and my hair started turning gray. It turned back brown after I stopped eating dried fruit. I've heard similar stories from tons of other raw foodists. Pretty much every long-time rawie I know has a story about their experience with it.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: Did you seriously compare Tay-Sachs to diabetes? OK, look, (and I'm trying to say this delicately) Tay-Sachs is a result of...extreme...genetic...OK. I really don't know how to nicely say "your family tree doesn't fork", but that's the situation. It's a disease of Eastern European Jewry, and that's pretty much it. Diabetes shows up everywhere. It's ubiquitous, and is only non-selected for if the diet allows it. I'm not trying to bust the Jews, they've given us more than their share of great scientists, musicians, entertainers, etc., so forgive me if that's how it's come across.
Wow.
First of all, way to miss the point. You claimed a disease that kills before puberty cannot be genetic. I gave you an example of a disease that kills before age 5 that is 100% genetic. (I doubt you actually missed my point; you simply had no actual response and therefore decided to be supremely offensive.)
Second of all, if you are claiming Tay Sachs is a result of inbreeding, I'd like to see some evidence of that? You know, as opposed to the counter-evidence kq provided?
You clearly have no clue about genetics.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
steven, according to some raw foodists, my whole family should be dying because of the way we eat.
We aren't. We're actually quite healthy. Got the blood tests to prove it and everything.
I do think all things must be done in moderation.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: "Dude, your Vitamin D council link says that 20-30 minutes in the sun yields more vitamin D than a person needs per day."
IIRC, no, unless the person is pale-skinned, naked, and in a place that is not currently in a "Vitamin D winter." You didn't read carefully, and I don't what I can do to make you read carefully.
From your Vitamin D Council link:
quote: If one regularly avoids sunlight exposure, research indicates a necessity to supplement with at least 5,000 units (IU) of vitamin D daily. To obtain this amount from milk one would need to consume 50 glasses. With a multivitamin more than 10 tablets would be necessary. Neither is advisable.
The skin produces approximately 20,000 IU vitamin D in response 20–30 minutes summer sun exposure—100 times more than the US government's recommendation of 200 IU per day!
One of the ways it lists for "adults to ensure adequate levels of Vitamin D" is to "regularly receive midday sun exposure in the late spring, summer, and early fall, exposing as much of the skin as possible." (All quotes are from the same paragraph.) Since it's illegal to stroll around outside naked that obviously wouldn't fall under the category of "as much skin as possible". I'm sure they would have used the term "legal" in their phrasing, except that a person of average intelligence would be able to parse that. And yes, I'm aware that some steps would need to be taken to ensure adequate intake in some areas during "winter months", but that doesn't include the majority of the United States, according to the National Institute of Health. The Vitamin D Council only suggests taking 5,000 IU if you "regularly avoid sun exposure." That's a bit different than getting winter sun. Winter sun still supplies some Vitamin D. In other words, you would have to drink 50 glasses of milk (which they do not suggest) only if you were getting NO sun exposure at all.
quote: The UV energy above 42 degrees north latitude (a line approximately between the northern border of California and Boston) is insufficient for cutaneous vitamin D synthesis from November through February
So the people who live in the very northernmost part of the US would need some form of supplementation during the winter. People due south of that line may only need supplementation during a very short time in the dead of winter, and people in the southern half of the US (Oklahoma and south, also mentioned by the NIH) never need it at all.
Also from the NIH:
quote: The factors that affect UV radiation exposure and research to date on the amount of sun exposure needed to maintain adequate vitamin D levels make it difficult to provide general guidelines. It has been suggested, for example, that approximately 5-30 minutes of sun exposure between 10 AM and 3 PM at least twice a week to the face, arms, legs, or back without sunscreen usually lead to sufficient vitamin D synthesis and that the moderate use of commercial tanning beds that emit 2-6% UVB radiation is also effective [11,28].
Basically the only points I made are that kids who play outside regularly and eat a well-balanced diet shouldn't have much of a problem. Being outside alone will give kids south of the 42nd parallel most or all of the Vitamin D they need. Most kids also get some form of fortified milk or cereal as well. I'm not saying that eating cereal for breakfast all the time is a good idea. I'm saying that cereal with milk is a breakfast staple and milk is a staple in general, at least in the US. Most kids are consuming them quite regularly.
Let me say it again: I'm not a big fan of cereal. But MY children play outside everyday, and I live in Texas, so I don't have to worry about it. However, most other children are consuming milk and/or cereal quite often, and ALSO receive sun exposure. So in order for a child to not get enough Vitamin D, they would have to avoid all sun exposure AND milk. My worries for a child like that go beyond their Vitamin D intake alone.
Of course, this is also from your link, in response to the question "How much Vitamin D Should I Take?":
quote: Again, we don't know. This is a difficult question because it relies on so many personal factors. Everyone's situation is either a lot, or at least a little, different. How much vitamin D you need varies with age, body weight, percent of body fat, latitude, skin coloration, season of the year, use of sunblock, individual variation in sun exposure, and—probably—how ill you are. As a general rule, old people need more than young people, big people need more that little people, fat people need more than skinny people, northern people need more than southern people, dark-skinned people need more than fair skinned people, winter people need more than summer people, sunblock lovers need more than sunblock haters, sun-phobes need more than sun worshipers, and ill people may need more than well people.
Quite a few factors are involved, as you can see. However, don't feel bad, no one understands it. Vitamin D is used by the body—metabolically cleared—both to maintain wellness and to treat disease. If you get an infection, how much vitamin D does your body use up fighting the infection? Nobody knows. If you have cancer, how much vitamin D does your body use up fighting the cancer? Nobody knows. If you have heart disease, how much vitamin D does your body use up fighting the heart disease? Nobody knows. If you are a child with autism, how much vitamin D does your brain need to turn on the genes that autism has turned off? Nobody knows. If you are an athlete, how much vitamin D does your body use up making you stronger and quicker? Nobody knows, etc.
Based on this definitive research, they suggest taking a lot! Maybe I'll stress about it more when they figure out what you're taking it all FOR.
quote: I wasn't the one who brought it up. I was reacting to PSI Teleport's assertion that dried fruit was an indicator of a "healthy" cereal.
Since I never said this, nor made a comment regarding the healthfulness of dried fruit at all, I'm going to go ahead and assume you're not paying attention, and stop responding to you.
ETA: At this point we're probably just arguing to see who's more anal about the food they eat. So I'll concede: it's you.
[ October 16, 2008, 01:48 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"this point we're probably just arguing to see who's more anal about the food they eat. So I'll concede: it's you."
As an American in 2008, that's a compliment. It displays the awareness of the need to focus on the fundamentals. It doesn't get much more fundamental than your health, and I guarantee that diet is the #1 cause of poor health in this country. So yeah, I'm anal about my diet. I also am height/weight proportionate, with no blood sugar or blood pressure problems, and am more free of aches and pains of the joint and muscle type than I was 10 years ago. I need no medications, and I have plenty of stamina and strength, even though I don't do a lot of exercise beyond tai chi. I eat a lot better than I used to, and my health shows it. You get out of things what you put into them, and I have chosen to put a lot of energy and time into eating healthily. No shame in that. I can always go back and eat junk later. the junky stuff isnn't going anywhere. It isn't hiding from me, or sneaking away when I'm not looking.
But seriously, my grandparents are all height-weight proportionate, and only one of them has had a heart attack and/or heart trouble, and he was 69 when that happend. OTOH, my parents are both heavily overweight, have been for years, and had a quadruple bypass at age 48 (mom) and major heart attack at age 49 (dad). 2 of my 4 grandparents smoke, and both my parents do, so it isn't really that. It's the diet, no?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"So the people who live in the very northernmost part of the US would need some form of supplementation during the winter. "
There's a big difference between
a. enough of a vitamin to prevent obvious deficiency
and
b. enough of a vitamin to protect the health in a more general sense, including during times when more of that vitamin is being used up, like during illness.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)