Kellogg’s is waging a war here over Tigre Toño and Sam el Tucán.
A 2019 policy requires companies that make unhealthy foods to include warning labels on the front of any boxes they sell in Mexico to educate consumers about things like excess sugar and fat. Any food with a warning label — like Kellogg’s Fruit Loops or its Frosted Flakes, which typically contain more than 37 grams of added sugar in a 100-gram serving — is also banned from including a mascot on its packaging.
Isn’t the daily amount like 0 you need? So Infinity % for any added amount?
This is actually an honest question, because you can easily cover your daily needs with other carbs and even those are technically not necessarily as it can be metabolized by fat in your body, but no point in bending the truth here. The body needs sugar one way or the other, but none of them are processed sugars and should probably come from rice, potatoes or bread instead.
“% daily value” is supposedly something like “percent recommended daily value” and it’s a bizarre balance between minimum to avoid deficiencies and maximum to avoid overdose as determined by a board of corporate employees with no training in medicine, diet, or nutrition
so, while there’s no minimum for “total sugars”, most who are actually trained in diet and nutrition seem to agree you really shouldn’t be going over 25–30g total sugars …
FDA does provide a daily value for “added sugars” – 100% daily value is 50g (10-ish teaspoons) which sounds a little excessive to me …
At least it sounds almost reasonable if the sugar comes from fruits. That’s roughly the amount (25g sugar) you ingest when eating 2 apples.
Thank you for the interesting, but concerning answer.
deleted by creator
Maybe, kinda. You have to eat them in moderation like anything. They at least provide other useful nutrients.
In my opinion fruits are slightly more beneficial than bread, pasta or potatoes which do not contain as much sugar, but more of other carbs which are in my opinion not much better.
So I see your point, but I don’t think they are as bad.
deleted by creator
Actually I can’t argue against that. You are obviously correct.
I just believe that fruits are not as bad as it helps with variety in your diet and they are not just empty calories.
Potatoes are very low glycemic index* and have potassium, fiber, B6, and an alright amount of protein. I will fight for potatoes.
Edit: preparation matters, just mashed potatoes are super high glycemic index, but boiled waxy potatoes with the skins on alongside a protein is at the top edge of low or medium glycemic index. I will still fight for potatoes, but they probably need to be a side dish if you are looking out for your blood sugar.
Sorry, but aren’t potatoes even worse than white bread and sugar regarding the glycemic index? According to google they have scores between 80 and 90 on average while sugar (sucrose) has a score of 68.
I guess starch is really bad. I wasn’t aware it has such a high impact.
Don’t get me wrong they are not terrible in a balanced diet, but I don’t believe they have any real benefits either. Besides they are tasty which is honestly a good reason to like foods.
Exactly right. The four foods that endocrinologists tells diabetics not to eat commonly or much of are potatoes, corn, sweet potatoes, and beets. That’s on top of all the obvious items, like sugary confections, cakes, pies, etc.
I think the difference is the kind of potatoes, because they were recommended to a friend by her doctor to treat her prediabetes, but now I’ve just googled them and found what you found. Boiled waxy potatoes with the skin on are the most common home preparation here in Germany, which brings the glycemic index down to 59, according to tufts
deleted by creator
Or at least until you get sick enough for Big Pharma and Insurance to then have their turn with you