cjsmith: (Default)
[personal profile] cjsmith
This site is AWESOME. I hope they expand their listings.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-05-02 02:42 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] rfrench.livejournal.com
Sadly I probably would eat that much sugar...at least if I was really hungry!

Am I the only person who eats sugar cubes in restaurants when he's sick of waiting for the real food to arrive and is starving?

(no subject)

Date: 2009-05-02 02:48 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cjsmith.livejournal.com
You are the only person I know who lives almost entirely on sugar and starch. Your metabolism is amazing.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-05-02 02:49 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ladycelia.livejournal.com
That's fascinating. Disturbing in some cases, but really interesting.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-05-02 02:57 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cjsmith.livejournal.com
I clicked every link, unable to take my eyes off it. I note that in many categories, they seem to have picked the biggest "offenders" - there were no eggs in the breakfast category, no cranberries in the fruits, and no green leafies in the vegetables. Still, it's quite a reminder of all the stuff I couldn't think of touching last year.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-05-02 03:01 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ladyqkat.livejournal.com
Wow. Having a frame of reference visualization makes a lot os sense whether you are doing the calorie counting diet thing or just the healthier eating thing. Thanks for the link.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-05-02 03:02 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cjsmith.livejournal.com
Isn't it a whole new way of thinking about it, visualizing it like that? Incredible.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-05-02 03:09 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ladyqkat.livejournal.com
I am very much a bread eater and would love to see how different breads 'stack up' using this method.

I think that, had something like this been available when I was into my more serious dieting era, I might have been able to pay more attention to what I was ingesting. Calories and calorie tables never made much of an impression on me. This might have.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-05-02 03:24 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cjsmith.livejournal.com
Yes! I would love to see a site that includes starches so simple that they're sugar by the time they hit your esophagus. Those waffles are nowhere near as low-sugar as they look, even without syrup.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-05-02 03:07 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] hnybny.livejournal.com
This part is important though..

"Note: We don't differentiate between different types of sugar - i.e., sucrose, fructose, cane sugar, corn syrup, honey, etc., although there are differences in how these sugars are metabolized. We just used cubes of white sugar as a visual aid. Nutritional information was taken from package labels, manufacturer websites, or the USDA nutrient database. Calorie amounts are based on 4 calories per gram of sugar unless otherwise noted."

That means natural sugars get counted as cubes too.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-05-02 03:21 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cjsmith.livejournal.com
Yep, it's a generalization. I think it's still useful; there are differences in how they're metabolized, but nothing like (say) the differences between how a sugar and a fat are metabolized. But it's good that they noted that.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-05-02 03:08 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kimatha.livejournal.com
Drinks are the worst! No wonder there's a diabetes epidemic! People drink sodas and crap all day and don't even think about it!

(no subject)

Date: 2009-05-02 03:22 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cjsmith.livejournal.com
I am amazed that I didn't destroy my ability to respond to insulin during my college years.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-05-02 11:43 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] quasigeostrophy.livejournal.com
That much sugar would still beat, IMHO, the volume equivalent of HFCS that's actually in the stuff. :-)

(no subject)

Date: 2009-05-02 03:53 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cjsmith.livejournal.com
I think I'm not parsing what you mean; I thought HFCS was a *tiny* volume for a pretty big sweet-taste factor. No?

(no subject)

Date: 2009-05-02 04:34 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] quasigeostrophy.livejournal.com
Maybe. I might have been misinterpreting the analogy, too. Still, I think I'd go for the sugar first given the choice.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-05-02 11:45 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] lauradi7.livejournal.com
Thank you!

(no subject)

Date: 2009-05-02 03:54 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cjsmith.livejournal.com
You're welcome! I'm a sucker for simple visuals.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-05-02 02:24 pm (UTC)
nosrednayduj: pink hair (Default)
From: [personal profile] nosrednayduj
I wish they would put the apple juice picture RIGHT NEXT TO the coke picture. It's so STUPID how schools won't let soda in vending machines, but there's the juice -- as though it's better for you. Have a coke and a vitamin C pill; it's not worse! (Vit. C added to the juice anyway, not much naturally there after all that processing). Personally, I don't think sugar is evil, and I eat a fair bit of it; I just get annoyed at people who say that certain sugar-containing things are evil while other just-as-full items are not. I make my cookies with whole wheat flour; they're better for you than many "breakfast foods" and have about as much sugar, but because they're called "cookies" my housemate gets torqued when I feed them to the kids for breakfast.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-05-02 03:52 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cjsmith.livejournal.com
Oh, that would indeed be good: the apple juice next to an equivalent-volume serving of Coke. Me, I don't think sugar is inherently evil, but I do think lack of awareness is dangerous (at least in a society so laden with both sugar and diabetes). If people know what they're doing, they can make informed choices, such as choosing whole-grain cookies. I'd love to see your cookies next to a pair of Pop-Tarts or a bowl of Froot Loops.