You're just spouting half-baked influencer nonsense. Sugar is not a demon, carbohydrates are literally the primary fuel that we run on, and virtually every cell in our body uses them. It's the improper consumption of carbohydrates outside of their natural, intact, whole-food context; as well as within the context of an overall diet that tends to be high in heavily processed foods, extremely low fiber, low antioxidant and other phytonutrient content, way too high in animal products which come packaged with too much saturated fats, especially cured meats, and in lifestyles with other significant risk factors like sedentary, smoking, and excessive alcohol consumption.

Fat has its place, but its role is mainly an emergency store for periods of starvation. Our bodies use these fuels differently too. For example if you look at textbooks on fitness training, they might talk about the myth of "the fat burning zone." Think of our body's energy consumption like a set of dimmer switches. The body does not switch between one or the other like a binary, it's more that it will use differing ratios of all energy sources based partly on activity level. If you're doing low impact activity like walking or, even just existing, the body will tend to prefer burning a ratio of calories from fat. If you move to higher impact activities, your body will start burning a much higher ratio of calories from carbohydrates. Although going back to that point about the fat burning zone myth, it must be stressed that it is a myth - you'll burn a lot more fat with higher impact exercise despite the body using more carbs because the overall volume of calories burned is way higher than with low impact, especially if you do something like HIIT.

There is good reason that even relatively conservative fitness organizations like NASM say right in their textbooks - carbs are equally, if not a more important nutrient than protein.

And yeah, the communication about fats in the 80s and 90s was poor. But that doesn't mean one macro is magically innocent and the other is evil. In the big picture, experts were recommending Mediterranean style diets all the way back then. Industry did not listen. Sure some products were reduced fat - mostly the unpopular ones. And yes they raised sugar levels. But overall, both refined sugar levels, and fat levels have increased in processed food levels over time - especially saturated fats, and when it was legal, trans fats.

But yeah, palm and coconut oils are awful. They're being put in too many things, and it won't surprize me if we're going to start seeing a dip in vegan health outcomes because of that.

Oh, and actually plant-centric diets are a better way to achieve satiety than fat. Fats are so calorie dense that it's way too easy to overconsume before feeling full. Since diets heavy in whole-plant foods are naturally high in fiber and low in overall calories, it's easier for a person to eat as much as they want and still keep their weight under control. This is why vegans and vegetarians tend to average the lowest bodyweights among dietary groups.

Plus, this shouldn't surprise anyone since we all read the label, right?

Plants do contain fats so it's not mutually exclusive. Nuts, beans, all sorts of seeds, all contain high amounts of fat, which is oil.

Carbohydrates and sugar are not the same thing, no matter how many times you regurgitate sugar industry pervertions.

Doing the real science! Thanks!!

Nuts and cocoa also contain sugars, which make up the 5%. Those are the nutritional values, which state the total content - there is already some sugar in the contents before the sugar is added.

Although that is nutritionally bad, it's not that atypical from a gastronomic point of view. I mean, jams end up being about half their weight in sugar too.

That much oil is uncalled for, though.

The palm oil is especially bad because of the way it is produced - mainly by burning down rain forest and planting there, but the soil isn't great for that and gets washed out fast, which means the next area of rain forest gets destroyed.

Yummy

palm oil is not palm kernel oil JTYSK

I think both "per serving" and "per 100g" should be required. Some foods/drinks come with "0g carbs" or "0 calories" in small enough servings, but only because the actual amount is negligible. The problem is that once the serving gets large enough, those things do start to matter, especially for instance carbs for diabetics.

Multiple times I've run into a "low carb" or "low sugar" drink that said something like 2 or 3g carbs per serving, and then had 2 or 3 servings per bottle, which ending up raising my blood sugar more than expected. Technically that's on me for not checking the "per serving" and "servings per container", and I've since learned my lesson, but it's still annoying.

I completely agree - we need both!

I've tasted of the water of lies, yes. Have you not? Are you confused at my example?

There are still laws on the books prohibiting employers from paying wages in lobster rather than currency. Yes, the oppressed have been so for a very, very long time, haven't they? 😶

Lots of parents I knew as a kid didn’t let their kids have this kind of cereal. They didn’t let their kids drink pop all the time either.

"powder"

"skim milk powder"

“skim milk powder”

Now with more extra Micro Plastics than ever before!

Although MIPL were detected in all analyzed samples,
MIPL types varied greatly among skim-milk powders,
ranging from a minimum of 2 to a maximum of 13 MIPL
species within a sample (Figure 2). Additionally, 29 different types of polymeric matrices were identified (Figure2) for a total count of 536 particles

Doesn't matter. If someone put time and effort into creating something it is disheartening to be accused of AI slop. If people actually care about reducing AI slop and protecting actual creativity and art, we shouldn't make aimless accusations.

A jar of this would last years in my house as a kid.

Maybe Kid Rock.

Why the fuck does it cost that much?

most stores have a generic version which is almost identical

Same in Europe in the late 00s/early 10s anyway - the ads here boasted about it being a good source of slow-release energy to keep you going til lunch

I liked nugatti zero, but apparently it doesn't exist anymore?

/s my friend. The calories moving my touchscreen were well utilized! Sorry for the confusion :)

Stop eating refined sugar. Your physical well-being will improve drastically from just that one change.

Fuck no. That shit is vile

Nutrition is so confusing. Giving broad categories such as healthy or not healthy deserves way more nuance. Sure, if someone is sitting around all day every day, going crazy on a jar of this it's usually unadvisable. But if you're out hiking for the day, or going for a day's mountain run, this would be an extremely good idea to take.

Right, it's no good environmentally, or healthwise.

Lol. Sugar industry perversions? My anointed sibling, you replied to a comment in which I recommended a list of ingredients to make a healthy Nutella alternative - not a single one of which was sugar.

And okay, carbs aren't sugar. Except they also are sugar, because all carbs are made of sugar. That's the point, that the substance itself is not evil or unhealthy. It's the inappropriate consumption and other relevant lifestyle factors that are.

For example, overconsumption of fats - namely saturated fats - increases insulin resistance in the body. This effect amplifies the harmful effects of sugar. Sugar does not cause diabetes apart from obesity.

Anointed sivling eh? None of that is accurate, brother.

Yes, and those are usually beneficial fats, and are naturally in the ballpark of healthy levels. A person on a 100% whole-food plant-based diet, if they are not adding any extra refined fats, can expect their calories from fats to be anywhere as low as 10% (which is likely dangerously low), to as high as maybe 30% if they are eating a lot of the high-fat plants like nuts, seeds, and avocado. But healthy oils like canola and olive oil can be an easy way to get that number in the 25-30% range, while getting the benefits of improved antioxidant absorption.

All of it is accurate.

Sugar causes diabetes. Carbs are very different in your body then sugar, and it looks like your post was edited, idk about fat causing diabetes as you typed, never heard that.

I think most parents think “better they eat something than nothing” but I’d argue maybe that’s not always the case.

yeah, it's more a "we finally got them to eat something. calories are calories dammit" on our end.

When I was a kid, it felt more delicious, than now.

Add in a "per container" for things that are realistically seen as a single serving, like your drink example.

That way I don't have to do the 'per 100g' figuring and I have a realistic assessment of that small can of soup that's somehow supposed to be 2 to 3 servings.

There's a Turkish supermarket near me and the hazelnut spread there is amazing. It's 50% hazelnut and 10% cocoa with no palm oil

Never considered that possibility. Do you have a recipe? Would love to try.

I can't remember which one I used last but if you look up a "healthy" one it'll usually give you a better ratio of nuts to sugar. There are tons of recipes out there for homemade Nutella, so it's kind of a process of trial and error to play with the ratios to find what you like best

I find the homemade stuff tastes way better since it's more like hazelnut butter with chocolate

Sugar causes diabetes.

Wrong. The single biggest factor in type 2 diabetes is body fat. Sugar can contribute to weight gain, but so can a lot of things. Overconsumption in general will lead to weight gain, and weight gain increases the risk of diabetes. Sugar can be one factor in those risks, but is almost never the sole reason. You know what does appear to play a pretty big role in diabetes risk? Meat.

Carbs are very different in your body then sugar,

Which ones? There are three types of carbs: sugar, starch, and fiber. Basic sugars and starches mostly act the same in the body. Both are quickly broken down by enzymes in our intestines, and processed into our bloodstream rather quickly (although starches take a little bit longer to digest than simple sugars).

Fiber is where things really are different. We cannot digest fiber, but out gut microbiome can, which makes it a crucially important category of nutrients for our gut health.

But I think what you're not getting is that natural sources of fiber are very often also natural sources of high amounts of sugar and starches. Many fruits are very important sources of fiber, vitamins and minerals, and unique phytonutrients - but they are also a package deal with lots of sugar. So if sugar is so bad, does that mean fruit is bad too? No, well, not usually at least. And that's because the fiber binds up those sugars and a lot of other nutrients, and causes all of them to digest a lot more slowly. On top of that, the antioxidants in the fruits cancel out what would have been pro-inflammatory effects of the sugars if those sugars were consumed in a form where the fiber and antioxidants were stripped away leaving only processed sugars.

This is what I was trying to get it. Whether sugar is harmful or not depends on a lot of factors. When it's refined away from its whole-food source it's bad. When it's refined and consumed in a diet really high in saturated fats, it becomes even worse. But sugars that are naturally present in plants, when those plants are eaten in their whole form, are healthy and a great source of energy.

and it looks like your post was edited,

Are you accusing me of something?

idk about fat causing diabetes as you typed, never heard that.

Not just fat, excessive body fat. Overweight is the single biggest risk factor for type 2 diabetes. This is why every fad diet out there can claim to "cure" diabetes. Play around with a diet long enough and you might lose weight. If you lose weight, your diabetes might go into remission. Viola, you can now claim your diet cures diabetes.

Rapeseed (canola) oil doesn't destroy rain forests. Sunflower oil doesn't destroy rain forests. Palm oil is the worst.

There are more varieties of hazelnut chocolate spread in Germany than there are stars in the sky. Not all of them, but most of them, are better than Nutella.

A bakery near me does their own "nutella" with less sugar and bo palm oil. It's so much better

My mother always used to do that.

brand new sentence

That is a lot of words. Answering the first sentence however, sugar becomes fat, so it's a nonsensical argument from the get go. Fructose is converted into fat in the liver (yes with other steps,), glucose used as is, 50/50 ratio, 60/40 fructose/glucose on high fructose corn syrup.

As to the editing of the post claim, I believe you made a second post I took for edited at the time so I was wrong, responding to your previous post while looking at the newer one. But I never confirmed that. But I apologize if so.

To accuse fruit of being the same as raw sugar, with fiber, is sugar industry propaganda all the way. You bought their arguments, read their propaganda, and believed it.

To claim sugar is not different from carbs and starch, is similarly incorrect, laughably so. We all know the body breaks it down to sugar to use it, that doesn't mean it's the same to ingest.

I am all over the place here, but you are conflating body fat with eating fatty foods, to excuse the outsized role sugar plays in this process. You believed what you were told, and still do. That is what is going on here. Arguing body fat causes diabetes not sugar is like saying bullets kill people not guns.

There are unhealthy fats to be sure, and other sources of obesity, sugar is the biggest by far though..

The sugar content of bakery and candies is high. More news at 6.

Chocolate hazelnut spread.