You must log in or # to comment.
I’m actually not seeing anything especially surprising here. Does anyone eat a bite of it and not immediately know it’s got a ton of fat and sugar in it?
Knowing it has sugar is one thing. Seeing the volume of sugar relative to the other ingredients is still a shock
I guess I’ve seen so many of these things that I’ve stopped being surprised. This one was really popular for a long time.
That one can’t be real. There’s more sugar than could physically fit in the coke can. Like no liquid, just sugar, there’s more than 12oz of sugar.
There’s 39 grams of sugar in a a coke can. Sugar is water soluble and 90% of the can is water that can absorb the 10% of sugar.
Hmmm, look at the labels. They each say something something “100”.
Not the right language, but maybe something like per 100? Like per 100 grams of water? Or… something about volume?
IDK, it would be a weird way to do it. But something like that might explain why so much sugar, seemingly more than can fit in the can.
Sugar is heavy, there’s no way 39 grams is the same size as the can
Edit: gandalf seems to have the right idea here! https://sh.itjust.works/comment/24686999
Edit2: wait, a can has 300+ grams of fluid in it… So the sugar would be 1/3 of what the whole can would be. This actually makes the picture more confusing 🤔
Edit 3:
Behold, 39 grams of sugar. About one shot glass worth.
Here’s that glass next to a can. I don’t have any soda pop in the house.
Good thing I don’t just eat the stuff by itself right out of the jar and finish the whole thing in a single sitting.
Oh god who would do such a thing!?! Next you’d tell me some people would scrape their fingers all around the inside of the jar and lick them making sure they get every last remaining chocolate of that sweet sweet nector of the gods. And even stick their tongue inside, making out style with the jar, making sure no more chocolate taste left 🤤
Couldn’t be me
If you ever baked anything or made desserts this is no surprise. You always have to cut the sugar amount in half.
I think it’s better just to make and eat desserts less frequently than try to mess with the sugar ratios, especially with baking. Like if you want something healthy maybe make a fruit tart instead of something that involves something like Nutella or cake icing where it’s supposed to be very sweet.
Naaah, it works alright.
In some cases fucked up amounts of sugar are integral for the receipt (e.g Kouign-amann), but in most other cases (e.g cheesecakes) it is there just because author thinks it is the right amount.
Bakery is a spektrum and less sugary bakery have even more rights to exists than over-sugared.
Well ok yeah less sweet cheesecakes are alright
And everything can be lessened, with time. Even the amount of sugar in bakery.
You’ll get used to the changed taste.
(of course everything else will taste more or less like sugar only, when compared to own makings with less sugar)
I use way way less sugar in anything I bake, especially like apple pies, of which I use zero sugar. Once your palette adjusts it tastes good, you can taste the natural sweetness of fruits and vegetables.
Food does have ingredients, yes.
Palm oil is bad though. Besides that, I get what you mean
sugar is worse (to your health)
Ultra-processed palm oil is bad.
The use of palm trees for palm oil is bad.
Palm oil is bad because rainforest is burned down to grow more monoculture palm oil. https://wwf.panda.org/discover/our_focus/food_practice/sustainable_production/palm_oil/
This basically describes all agricultural:
- Clear wild land
- Implement monoculture
This has been discussed before. Clearing out steppes and prairies is different from clearing out rainforest with its extreme biodiversity.
I eat only food that has just one ingredient, myself.
Are you turning yourself into an ingredient? Is this the future liberals want?!?
Wait until you hear about Soylent green
Nice, nice. Lots of nutrition. Jar of Nutella will do fine if I’m lost in the wilderness.
Palm oil = deforestation.
Too much refined sugar is bad. Too much fat, particularly saturated fats, are bad. When you put them together, they work synergistically to fuck you up so much more. But everyone zeroing in on the sugar exclusively, pay attention. There are 4 calories in a gram of sugar, and 9 calories in a gram of fat. In one serving that’s 21 grams of sugar times 4, which is 84 calories from sugar. By contrast, even though there is less fat by volume at 12 grams, it still amounts to more calories than the sugar at 108 calories per serving.
And notably only 1 gram of fiber per serving.
I don’t even remember what Nutella tastes like, and even when I did try it I never understood the hype. If I were trying to make a healthy alternative, I would blend together a mix of hazelnuts, walnuts, oats, cocoa, dates, and however much needed water to get the desired consistency. I don’t feel like added fats should be necessary (nuts are already naturally high in fats), but if I wasn’t satisfied with the results, I might try using a little canola or avocado oil. Knowing me, I’d probably squeeze some flax in as well.
That would be healthier, but it’s no wonder you were disappointed with the results. The stickiness of the dates would definitely let you lower the fat content, but replacing all of that with water is going to give a very different texture.
To mimic the texture of the saturated fats, you’d do better to use olive oil or the avocado oil you suggested and store the result in the refrigerator. Both of those solidify at refrigerator temperatures the way the saturated fats do at room temperature - canola doesn’t, so that won’t work as well.
Replacing the powdered milk with oats (which would also help a little with gelling the mixture) is good, but don’t forget to add a pinch of salt that is inherent in cow’s milk but the oats are lacking.
You’ll still not be getting the flavor exactly, but those two substitutions should get you a lot closer and a much more similar texture. The walnuts in particular are definitely going to throw you off though. You could reduce the cocoa powder slightly to make up for the extra bitterness, but they would still add a heavier earthy flavor to the mix that people used to milk rather than dark chocolate probably won’t find appealing.
This is all hypothetical and something I spontaneously listed based on the ingredients in the image. I haven’t actually tried making it and don’t know if the results are disappointing or not.
Some of the ingredients I chose were based more toward seeking health benefits than flavor - the walnuts and flax in particular. Both ingredients would make the results more of an acquired taste, and I might prefer something like pumpkin seeds and/or cashews if I felt stronger about flavor.
Calories are not just numbers, it matters where it comes from, and sugar is a worthless source of them, while fat is something the body needs. Palm Oil is awful though, everyone should be boycotting it. But the body doesn’t feel full until it gets an amount of fat, the brain needs it for proper functioning.
Fat was blamed for the ills of sugar our entire lives by the sugar industry in fact.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Carbohydrates and sugar are not the same thing, no matter how many times you regurgitate sugar industry pervertions.
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.
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.
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.
Right, it’s no good environmentally, or healthwise.
