The Official Health and Fitness Thread

[maplesyrup]

Juice? This party is going to be off the hook.

Basically, anything that ends in "ose" is bad. Even lactose in milk - though it's the least potent of the "oses." Large quantities of fruit juice and milk can be bad but they contain lots of other goodies that make them okay. - Rule of thumb is avoid all sugars unless there is another nutritional benefit. - There are tons of "fruit juices" that are high in sugar (fructose) content that do little else for you... You might as well be eating spoonfulls of sugar.   

No offense, but that's completely extreme. It's like saying all fats are bad, so avoid fats. I've never been of the mindset to avoid foods just because if you eat too much of it it could be bad - nuts are a great example. I don't think they're bad for you, just in the quantities people eat them. To cut them out just because it can be bad if you overeat them I think is just extreme, nevermind the fact that you're missing out on good nutritional content.

But I do agree that fruit juices are basically devoid of much good for you. Im a far bigger fan of making fresh smoothies.

None taken... Have you watched the vid?

Not yet (at work). Will watch when I get home though.

Prepare to have you mind blown re. all things "ose." 

 

[Bender]

Juice? This party is going to be off the hook.

Basically, anything that ends in "ose" is bad. Even lactose in milk - though it's the least potent of the "oses." Large quantities of fruit juice and milk can be bad but they contain lots of other goodies that make them okay. - Rule of thumb is avoid all sugars unless there is another nutritional benefit. - There are tons of "fruit juices" that are high in sugar (fructose) content that do little else for you... You might as well be eating spoonfulls of sugar.   

No offense, but that's completely extreme. It's like saying all fats are bad, so avoid fats. I've never been of the mindset to avoid foods just because if you eat too much of it it could be bad - nuts are a great example. I don't think they're bad for you, just in the quantities people eat them. To cut them out just because it can be bad if you overeat them I think is just extreme, nevermind the fact that you're missing out on good nutritional content.

But I do agree that fruit juices are basically devoid of much good for you. Im a far bigger fan of making fresh smoothies.

None taken... Have you watched the vid?

Not yet (at work). Will watch when I get home though.

Prepare to have you mind blown re. all things "ose." 

Maybe, but I don't usually take things people say as gospel without a lot of second opinions

 

[maplesyrup]

Juice? This party is going to be off the hook.

Basically, anything that ends in "ose" is bad. Even lactose in milk - though it's the least potent of the "oses." Large quantities of fruit juice and milk can be bad but they contain lots of other goodies that make them okay. - Rule of thumb is avoid all sugars unless there is another nutritional benefit. - There are tons of "fruit juices" that are high in sugar (fructose) content that do little else for you... You might as well be eating spoonfulls of sugar.   

No offense, but that's completely extreme. It's like saying all fats are bad, so avoid fats. I've never been of the mindset to avoid foods just because if you eat too much of it it could be bad - nuts are a great example. I don't think they're bad for you, just in the quantities people eat them. To cut them out just because it can be bad if you overeat them I think is just extreme, nevermind the fact that you're missing out on good nutritional content.

But I do agree that fruit juices are basically devoid of much good for you. Im a far bigger fan of making fresh smoothies.

None taken... Have you watched the vid?

Not yet (at work). Will watch when I get home though.

Prepare to have you mind blown re. all things "ose." 

Maybe, but I don't usually take things people say as gospel without a lot of second opinions

I hear ya.  8)

 

[hockeyfan1]

http://www.discovergoodnutrition.com/index.php/2011/02/the-truth-about-sugars-in-fruit/

http://www.fitsugar.com/OK-Eat-Plenty-Fruit-Worry-About-Fructose-2874911

http://healthonabudget.com/the-difference-between-sugar-in-fruit-vs-processed-snacks-and-juice/

All of the articles are excellent.  I have stopped drinking juices off  of the supermarket shelf -- many are not only pasteurized, but boiled half to death, and, not all manufacturers come clean with their "no suger added" assertions.  In an article in MacLean's magazine not long ago, Tropicana brand of orange juice was found to be among one of the worst in terms of nutritional content because of what was done to the juice (see above).

I usually make a fruit juice concoction consisting of any of carrots, pineapples, apples, pears, celery, strawberries, orange, and half a lemon ( as preservative), plus I open a Vitamin C capsule and mix it in, as further preservative.  I store my juice in the refrigerator for not more than 3 days.  Ah, great tasting, real fruit juice!

If we need to buy juice over the counter, then a naturally-made flash pasteurized one is best.  Bolthouse Farms flash pasteurizes their juices, as an example, and of course, there are the ones that are quite costly ($8.99 + up) such as R.W. Knudson Just Juice brand, made of mostly of pure, unsweetened Blueberry juice, Cranberry, and Pomegranate, that can be found mostly at a natural food supermarket, and in some cases, a regular supermarket.  Expensive yes, but worth it.
Very concentrated, should be mixed with a little water.


I used to drink many juices off the shelf such as Tropicana brands, over the years, and found that I didn't feel any better.  Switching to a more natural brand, such as the Blueberry I mentioned above, not only makes me feel better, but my eyes feel better, too (since Blueberry is excellent for eye health).  I find the juice to be slightly superior to the equivalent eye supplements.  Guess it pays to do what's right for proper health.

One other thing:  if it doesn't say "certified organic", chances are it isn't.  Anyone can put a "natural", "organic" label on a product without any real certification, but those that say "certified organic" require certification (first or third party certification), otherwise, they cannot be "certified".

 

[TheMightyOdin]

I spent some vacation time on a farm on a remote island, my grandfathers farm. There was no industry on the island, he had no machinery.  Everything the family ate was provided by the farm.

You would sit down to lunch of a chicken that was alive that morning, beans and potatoes that were just pulled out of the ground an hour earlier and bread that my grandmother made by hand and all ingredients were harvested from the farm. There were also orange trees, pear trees, fig trees, lemon trees...etc.

You eat that kind of organic fresh food, breathe in that fesh air and put in some honest work helping around the farm it makes you feel really good and you realize how polluted our environment here really is.

I was fat back then. I could hike up a mountain on the island with relative ease but two weeks earlier I almost collapsed walking a few blocks through Toronto on a hot smog alert day.

I think about these experiences a lot.

 

[maplesyrup]

GMOs  That's the next thing I have to get my head wrapped around.

 

[hockeyfan1]

GMOs  That's the next thing I have to get my head wrapped around.

Let's hope our food will always be clear of GMOs.  Monsanto has been trying for years to get Canada (the federal government) to accept GMOs.  Fortunately, that hasn't happened in earnest yet, even though Corn and Soy seeds have already been genetically-
modified, so much so, that even Monsanto itself can't tell the GM'd seeds from the non-version, as such was the case with  Percy Schmeiser, a farmer who sued Monsanto after being pressured into buying questionnable seeds.  Ever heard of that story from several years ago? 

The Europeans have expressly banned GMO crops.  Unfortunately, many seeds that were planted (having been imported from here) ruined/damaged Euro farms and it's environment. 

Personally, I support the work of The Council of Canadians for alerting the public, and publications such as Alive magazine, for writing about the dangers of genetically-modified crops.

If a GMO seed can ruin and damage the natural environment -- seeds pollute the soil; butterflies, etc., that pollinate flowers & plants, etc,. etc,. can be affected, 'altering' their natural DNA -- then, what is to prevent GMOs to alter ours in the long run if we were to consume nothing but GMO'd food?  Think about it.

 

[maplesyrup]

Should We Regulate Sugar?

http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/01/should-we-regulate-sugar/

Should US Regulate Sugar like Tobacco, Alcohol?

http://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2012/02/should-us-regulate-sugar-like-tobacco-alcohol.html

 

[Corn Flake]

Should We Regulate Sugar?

Probably, but if they are going to regulate sugar, it brings a lot of other things into the picture as well that should be regulated as well.  ie: fats, fast food in general, etc. 

maybe the secret to getting America to slim down is to tax the crap out of the crap they eat way too much of.

 

[maplesyrup]

Should We Regulate Sugar?

Probably, but if they are going to regulate sugar, it brings a lot of other things into the picture as well that should be regulated as well.  ie: fats, fast food in general, etc. 

maybe the secret to getting America to slim down is to tax the crap out of the crap they eat way too much of.

Yeah, but what you're missing is that it's not "fat" that is at the root of the obesity problem in North America... It's sugar.

 

[Corn Flake]

Should We Regulate Sugar?

Probably, but if they are going to regulate sugar, it brings a lot of other things into the picture as well that should be regulated as well.  ie: fats, fast food in general, etc. 

maybe the secret to getting America to slim down is to tax the crap out of the crap they eat way too much of.

Yeah, but what you're missing is that it's not "fat" that is at the root of the obesity problem in North America... It's sugar.

Not really missing it, I just don't agree that sugar alone is the problem.  I think fast food is a bigger problem, because a meal typically combines the worst of fats, sugars, sodium and total calories.  You only need to look at the money that is spent on it every year to see how much of a problem it is. 

And yes, what kids can get in schools, mostly sugar, should be controlled as well.

I don't think the idea of making it so you have to be of age to purchase it is the way to go. I think you simply tax the crap out of it and make it far less reasonable to buy it. 

 

[maplesyrup]

Should We Regulate Sugar?

Probably, but if they are going to regulate sugar, it brings a lot of other things into the picture as well that should be regulated as well.  ie: fats, fast food in general, etc. 

maybe the secret to getting America to slim down is to tax the crap out of the crap they eat way too much of.

Yeah, but what you're missing is that it's not "fat" that is at the root of the obesity problem in North America... It's sugar.

Not really missing it, I just don't agree that sugar alone is the problem.  I think fast food is a bigger problem, because a meal typically combines the worst of fats, sugars, sodium and total calories.  You only need to look at the money that is spent on it every year to see how much of a problem it is. 

And yes, what kids can get in schools, mostly sugar, should be controlled as well.

I don't think the idea of making it so you have to be of age to purchase it is the way to go. I think you simply tax the crap out of it and make it far less reasonable to buy it.

Fast food in generally contains little nutritional value coupled with high sugar content. - it's really no more complicated then that.   

 

[Corn Flake]

Fast food in generally contains little nutritional value coupled with high sugar content. - it's really no more complicated then that. 

I. Don't. Really. Know. What. We. Are. Debating. Now.

High sugar = bad
High sugar + high fat = badderer.

All i'm saying. 

 

[Deebo]

What do you hate more sarge, Tim Connolly or sugar?

 

[maplesyrup]

Fast food in generally contains little nutritional value coupled with high sugar content. - it's really no more complicated then that. 

I. Don't. Really. Know. What. We. Are. Debating. Now.

High sugar = bad
High sugar + high fat = badderer.

All i'm saying.

Yeah, but what you're saying isn't entirely correct... Fat (saturated fat) is good for you. Our bodies need it... Our bodies don't need sugar - even of the natural variety. The perfect fruit would have all the vitamins and nutritional values minus the fructose. The perfect steak would contain no GMOs from a grass fed cow plus a good amount of fat. 

 

[maplesyrup]

What do you hate more sarge, Tim Connolly or sugar?

Connolly.... and it's not even close. 

 

[Corn Flake]

Fast food in generally contains little nutritional value coupled with high sugar content. - it's really no more complicated then that. 

I. Don't. Really. Know. What. We. Are. Debating. Now.

High sugar = bad
High sugar + high fat = badderer.

All i'm saying.

Yeah, but what you're saying isn't entirely correct... Fat (saturated fat) is good for you. Our bodies need it... Our bodies don't need sugar - even of the natural variety. The perfect fruit would have all the vitamins and nutritional values minus the fructose. The perfect steak would contain no GMOs from a grass fed cow plus a good amount of fat.

Our bodies "need" a very moderate amount of fat. Most people consume significantly more than what the body should take in, and its multiplied 10x when you start to throw in lunches and dinners at McD's or anywhere like that. Lets cut the sugar out for sure, but take out the mass quantities of saturated fats, etc etc at the same time.  I mean why not? 

If there was a "health tax" of $2 per combo at McD's, would it entice people to eat better? I think it might.

 

[maplesyrup]

Fast food in generally contains little nutritional value coupled with high sugar content. - it's really no more complicated then that. 

I. Don't. Really. Know. What. We. Are. Debating. Now.

High sugar = bad
High sugar + high fat = badderer.

All i'm saying.

Yeah, but what you're saying isn't entirely correct... Fat (saturated fat) is good for you. Our bodies need it... Our bodies don't need sugar - even of the natural variety. The perfect fruit would have all the vitamins and nutritional values minus the fructose. The perfect steak would contain no GMOs from a grass fed cow plus a good amount of fat.

Our bodies "need" a very moderate amount of fat. Most people consume significantly more than what the body should take in, and its multiplied 10x when you start to throw in lunches and dinners at McD's or anywhere like that. Lets cut the sugar out for sure, but take out the mass quantities of saturated fats, etc etc at the same time.  I mean why not? 

If there was a "health tax" of $2 per combo at McD's, would it entice people to eat better? I think it might.

Don't confuse saturated fats with trans fats. Saturated fats do not make you fat. We need them.well, I'm not sure big business wouldn't win out again over public heath a How much exactly? Well, I'm not that far along in my studies to know for sure but we don't need sugar - any of it. - That much I do know. Now, I haven't thrown a big enough grenade in my diet to avoid all sugar (it's next to impossible) but I do make an effort to avoid it where possible.

As far as taxing Mickey Dees is concerned, I'm not sure big business wouldn't win out again over public health. Especially when one could just choose to avoid them. One idea I suppose would be to offer substantial tax breaks to new establishments offering certified organic and sugar free selections, etc. but I'm not sure this would be a high priority for this government.

Edit: The purpose of course is to have good food out there... Cheap.

 

[TheMightyOdin]

I think we should be able to claim things like my gym membership on our tax returns.

 

[maplesyrup]

I think we should be able to claim things like my gym membership on our tax returns.

Under the right circumstances, I agree. I mean, should tax payer pay for guys just wanting to build body mass? No way, man.... but if the program is designed for long-term health and one actually sticks with it then why not? It could be a lesser burden on the health care system in the end.