I mentioned canned toms earlier - they vary quite a lot but it was still a surprise.
In fact, you’ve missed several posts about that. I’m a bit tired of being the focus and repeating myself, and am quite keen to look at sugar in this thread.
If you’ll excuse me, I’ll leave you in your newly registered admiration for manson1972.
But why do you think sugar is **added **to canned tomatoes? There’s a lot of natural sugar in tomatoes. And you contend natural sugar is fine, right?
I’m not going to repeat a post of a minute ago.
canned tomatos == processed == bad
tomatos off the vine - not processed == good
Amount of sugar in ‘red tomato’ (1md whole, 123g) == 3.2 grams
Amount of sugar in “canned tomato” (1 md, 111g) == 2.6 grams.
(vine tomato nutrition - Google Search)
But, clearly - canned is bad because its processed so the sugar is different.
You do realize that many of those foods are processed (bacon, feta cheese, OJ, yogurt), right? Particularly if you go by the OP’s narrow standards. Hell, raisins are processed by the OP’s standards.
Other than that, I agree. My current goal is 1900 calories, and it is difficult for me to even reach that on some days. I’m at just under 1200 calories for today, and I really just don’t feel like eating any more.
ETA: That should be just OVER 1200 calories.
Niche stuff like raisins aside, it’s interesting a total staple like canned toms contribute a good chunk of sugar to a daily allowance. Turns out toms are a fruit - didn’t think of that, so it is mostly natural sugar.
Fwiw, I think I’ll do as per milk which is count it in the daily allowance at half the stated sugar content.
Also, this link says some canned toms have added fructose sugar, which must be crazy:
I also read sugar content of exactly the same canned tom product can vary seasonally.
Ok, so milk and canned toms are outliers - natural and labelled so count at half the stated number of grams. Raisins are Satan’s food. Next?
I guess the best answer maybe to liquidise regular toms, at lest that way you get to appreciate the quantity of fruit you’re putting in your meal.
I have a hard time believing this. I’m not accusing you of being anything but honest, it’s just that unless you are very small and sedentary, 1200 in a day is a very small amount of food. You’ve kept a brutally honest food journal logging everything with calories-solid and liquid-that you consumed from rising in the morning until lying down for bed?
It seems like every canned or jarred fruit and vegetable would fall into the “has a label - bad” category. Hell, even frozen items have a label, I guess those are bad too.
It honestly seems like you don’t count any sugar in foods that don’t have the amount of sugar they contain on a clearly legible label. No label - eat as much as you want! Label, on the exact same food item, you better count your sugar!
I usually go to the market so wasn’t maybe as mindful of canned and jarred fruit and veg as some. Sure, canned toms but even those will be from the market and liquidised now.
It seems like “liquidizing” your tomatoes would be ‘processing’ them, at which point they become bad and not something you should be eating.
Yep, you said that at least once. It sounded smug and immature then.
Have you met your newly registered admirer a few posts up?
So …
Given that the expert guidance (again not stating it as the magic bullet for weight control) is to cut down to under 10% of added sugars, the confusion demonstrated about canned tomatoes and such is exactly why the FDA is in the comments phase of requiring labels to break out how much sugar is added sugar in labelled foods. Many won’t read it to be sure, as many don’t now, but obviously some (see our OP) do, and try to use that information.
Of course the Food Industrial Complex is not crazy about it… arguing, as some here have, that sugar is sugar.
Meanwhile the science is clear: sugar packaged in real foods minimally processed has a different impact than added sugars do.
As to the “processed” discussion … of course that word is a shorthand for “highly processed” vs “minimally processed” but also obviously it is sometimes grey. Canned tomatoes are a great example. Yes they can contain nothing but tomatoes. Or they can be loaded up with extra HFCS salt and more. Hence the need to read labels closely and with some intelligence and that impetus to have labels give the information needed.
Smug maybe, but it’s not really immature. This new sugar counting system seems too complicated. I’m going to stick with my “if my belt gets tight, I’m not going to eat as much” system.
Good luck with yours!
I lost 100 lbs in 9 months eating virtually nothing BUT processed foods (Jenny Craig). Oh, and I exercised a lot too. I didn’t once eat any canned toms.
Canned toms. Canned toms. Canned toms. Word has lost all meaning.
Awww, someone’s playing matchmaker!
I wish you well but the idea is to avoid the freak diets because, as an awful lot of us know, losing it isn’t the problem. This is about using better information to properly take control.
Eating less and exercising is now considered a “freak diet”?
Your obesity is making a lot more sense now.
Looking good, Randy. Stay classy.
Meh.
Up has a point manson. Unless one plans on staying on a meal replacement plan forever it is just one of many methods to lose weight, which indeed is not the more difficult part. The more difficult part is keeping it off for the long term (I am talking years, not months) afterwards.
100 pounds in 9 months is btw NOT very typical for Jenny Craig, which does do better at the 1 year mark than many other approaches. 5% from what would have happened without intervention is more typical. So unless you weighed over 2000 pounds Dante you are quite the outlier. Hell, maintaining that rate of weight loss, over 2.5 pounds/week, consistently over a nine month period, is atypical for even extreme medical supervised very low calorie diets. Almost all level off to much less than that after the first 12 weeks.
Very very very atypical results …