Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Which is the healthier option between the two? Sugar-free or fat-free?

I'm thinking sugar-free because we somewhat know more about the sugar substitutes than we do about the fat substitutes.
DunningKruger · 61-69, M
The problem with fat-free stuff if that they often replace the fat they remove with sugar, so there's that.
@DunningKruger Very true!
Shayla · F
I had a nutritionist tell me to choose low fat or low sugar but never pick fat free or sugar free. She said those end up being less healthy than the original stuff they're trying to improve.
@Shayla I agree....reduced is better than free for the reasons you state IMHO.
PerfectionOfTheHeart · 46-50, F
Out of the two, I think fat-free is the healthier option because usually when sugar-free is thrown out there on a product sugar substitutes like Aspartame become the sweetener.
MarkPaul · 26-30, M
Sugar-free is healthier. Processed and added sugar is actually toxic to the body. And, the problem with fat-free is, a lot of processed sugar is added to make up for the lack of texture and taste.

The key, of course, is moderation. If you eat 1 fat-free cookie or one scoop of ice-cream (with sugar), you'll be fine. But, most people's psychology is that since it's fat-free (or sugar-free), I can (and will) eat the entire box of cookies in one sitting without ever getting off the couch as they applaud themselves for "eating healthy."
SW-User
In my humble opinion,neither.
We believe, it is healthier to eat real foods in smaller quantities.
@SW-User I also abide by that rule when possible as portion control is probably the best defense. Still, there seems to be a debate, even between nutritionists, as to which one is better or worse.
indyjoe · 56-60, M
Both are better for you but you have to check the amounts of sugars, sodium, carbs, cholesterol, and saturated fat before purchasing. All of these cannot be totally avoided but you need to choose what has the lowest possible amounts (and sometimes that means switching to an off-brand or just a different brand). It really all comes down to reduction in intake...and the larger the reduction the better.
That can be a tricky question to answer. When they remove something, whether it’s fat or sugar, it’s replace with something...and that something is usually nasty and harmful to our health. In the last few months I’ve tried to stay away from sugar substitutes...I believe it’s poison for our body.
Hmmm..that's a hard one. Sugar free with no sugar substitute would be best. Fat isn't as bad as people make it out to be. Sugar is basically poison but sugar substitutes are bad too.
Bubbles · 36-40, F
sugar free, to make fat free taste good they just put in more sugar
@Bubbles It's definitely true that there is more sugar in fat-free foods. Same with reduced-fat, for that matter. But I'm still thinking that there is some magical goop that replaces the fat that we know little about whereas the sugar subs we know a little more about. Some are definitely better than others health-wise.
Bubbles · 36-40, F
@FigNewton If there is some magical fat replacing goop, I can tell you on thing...I sure as heck don't to know about it lol
Goops is soooo delicious! LOL
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
@Greybare Unsaturated fats are the best. It's best to reduce the saturated fats (but not eliminate them).
SweetMae · 70-79, F
Honestly, you are better off eating food the way nature made it. Just eat less.
cherokeepatti · 61-69, F
Fats are necessary in order to use fat-soluble vitamins.
SW-User
sugar-free but Idk I don't eat either.
SW-User
MethDozer · M
Sugar free. We now know and it is clear sugar is the enemy, not fats.
Fats are pretty harmless and are actually important nutrients. Even saturated ones.
MethDozer · M
@SW-User I am so confused.
SW-User
@MethDozer Let it be.
MethDozer · M
@SW-User My comfort zone

 
Post Comment