Sugar Free
Replies
-
sweetdixie92 wrote: »I eat sugar...had a chocolate s'more sundae last night. No regrets! All you need is a calorie deficit to lose weight. Providing you are hitting your macros, there's no reason why you can't have sugar.
Maybe, maybe not, but some of us just don't want to eat sugar and I don't see a problem with that. After all dieting (lifestyle) is a personal thing, so why eating something we don't like to, just because it fits in the calorie counting or most of the others do? I don't eat sugar, I don't like sugar and I am happy with that
fine don't eat sugar..just don't demonize it as something that is "bad"...it is just food..
and yes, you can eat sugar and lose weight. CICO works for everyone, regardless of sugar consumption < assuming no medical condition.
For the record, the OP never said it was bad. Just that she cut out 90% of it.
You can lose weight by cutting out sugary products if that's what is giving you your surplus in calories. Or you can choose to fit it in. I choose to not drink sugary sodas and save at least 150 calories I can put towards food. Nothing wrong with wanting to lower your sugar intake. Nothing wrong with wanting to eat it either. It's about what works for individuals.
Ok - if it is not necessary for weight loss and OP does not have a medical condition then why cut it out 90%???? I assume she views sugar as "bad"...but she is welcome to come back in and clarify.
Why does she need to clarify it? What she does is her concern - this thread is not asking for peoples opinion on what she's doing, its asking if anybody is also heavily cutting back on sugar.
I'm sure a simple yes or no would suffice - then s troll on to the next thread !
0 -
MarziPanda95 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »MarziPanda95 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »MarziPanda95 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »MarziPanda95 wrote: »rebekahterkelsen wrote: »I eat (and highly recommend) zero added sugar. By eliminating processed foods, this is very simple. Sugar is one of the leading causes of inflammation in the body, which then causes a myriad of other issues, including exacerbating symptoms of arthritis and autoimmune diseases. I'm not talking about the natural sugars that occur in carbohydrates. Even with cutting sugar, I still get 40-50g of sugar per day. Your body and brain need the carbs and even some sugar- we just do not need the added, refined and processed sugar that is in packaged foods.
i recommend ignoring this 100%...
Then take your own advice and please stop bullying people.
No, he's right. She's giving awful advice. The last thing anyone should want is people taking her broscience as fact. Your body cannot tell the difference between added sugar and fruit sugar, for one, and all that stuff about 'inflammation in the body'? Nonsense. I suffer from several autoimmune diseases, sugar has absolutely zero affect on them. If anything I'm eating more sugar than I did when I was obese (as I now drink more tea and take 5-6 teaspoons of sugar per cup) and my immune disorders have stayed totally fine.
Then how do you explain fructose and sucrose intolerance?
Alright then. Bar any individual medical intolerances that most people do not have, your body cannot tell the difference between added sugar and fruit sugar.
Are the symptoms of glucose intolerance and fructose intolerance the same?
Also does high dietary glucose affect the livers fatty acids in the same way high dietary fructose 'can'?
How is that first question relevant when we're talking about the average person, without intolerances? The symptoms of food intolerance are pretty similar no matter what you're intolerant to, which is why if you suspect you have an intolerance, you need to do an elimination test.
Pretty much all fruits contain BOTH fructose and sucrose anyway, you do realise? An apricot, for example, has 0.9g of fructose but 5.9g of sucrose, per 100g. As the fructose is almost always bound to glucose as sucrose, a disaccharide, then yes, it pretty much has the same affect on the liver as just eating a teaspoon of sugar. Which, obviously, nobody would recommend.
The first is relevant to confirm or disprove that glucose and fructose are processed identically by the body!
I do realise this that fruit contains BOTH sucrose and fructose thanks (I also realise that a steak contains both fat and protein and the body has a great way of separating the two things). I was actually asking about glucose and fructose - you did understand that?
There is plenty of research to suggest that fructose is not metabolised by the body the same as glucose - which would therefore suggest the body does not process all sugars identically.
Well no, it's not relevant, because we're not talking about people who have an intolerance. Of course they're going to digest things differently if they have a medical problem. We're talking about your average body, here, which does process sugars the same way. And no, I didn't realise you were talking about glucose and fructose, because you never mentioned glucose. Not once. You said sucrose, so I assumed you meant sucrose. Sucrose is kind of just another name for fructose and glucose being bound together to form a disaccharide.
Yeah I can see how you can miss the word glucose - I had to re-read it several times!
And you are correct I didn't mention it once - I mentioned it twice!
"Are the symptoms of glucose intolerance and fructose intolerance the same?
Also does high dietary glucose affect the livers fatty acids in the same way high dietary fructose 'can'?"
0 -
to which I stand by original point, that it is totally unnecessary unless OP has a medical condition ..tennisdude2004 wrote: »sweetdixie92 wrote: »I eat sugar...had a chocolate s'more sundae last night. No regrets! All you need is a calorie deficit to lose weight. Providing you are hitting your macros, there's no reason why you can't have sugar.
Maybe, maybe not, but some of us just don't want to eat sugar and I don't see a problem with that. After all dieting (lifestyle) is a personal thing, so why eating something we don't like to, just because it fits in the calorie counting or most of the others do? I don't eat sugar, I don't like sugar and I am happy with that
fine don't eat sugar..just don't demonize it as something that is "bad"...it is just food..
and yes, you can eat sugar and lose weight. CICO works for everyone, regardless of sugar consumption < assuming no medical condition.
For the record, the OP never said it was bad. Just that she cut out 90% of it.
You can lose weight by cutting out sugary products if that's what is giving you your surplus in calories. Or you can choose to fit it in. I choose to not drink sugary sodas and save at least 150 calories I can put towards food. Nothing wrong with wanting to lower your sugar intake. Nothing wrong with wanting to eat it either. It's about what works for individuals.
Ok - if it is not necessary for weight loss and OP does not have a medical condition then why cut it out 90%???? I assume she views sugar as "bad"...but she is welcome to come back in and clarify.
Why does she need to clarify it? What she does is her concern - this thread is not asking for peoples opinion on what she's doing, its asking if anybody is also heavily cutting back on sugar.
I'm sure a simple yes or no would suffice - then s troll on to the next thread !
white knight much?
0 -
to which I stand by original point, that it is totally unnecessary unless OP has a medical condition ..tennisdude2004 wrote: »sweetdixie92 wrote: »I eat sugar...had a chocolate s'more sundae last night. No regrets! All you need is a calorie deficit to lose weight. Providing you are hitting your macros, there's no reason why you can't have sugar.
Maybe, maybe not, but some of us just don't want to eat sugar and I don't see a problem with that. After all dieting (lifestyle) is a personal thing, so why eating something we don't like to, just because it fits in the calorie counting or most of the others do? I don't eat sugar, I don't like sugar and I am happy with that
fine don't eat sugar..just don't demonize it as something that is "bad"...it is just food..
and yes, you can eat sugar and lose weight. CICO works for everyone, regardless of sugar consumption < assuming no medical condition.
For the record, the OP never said it was bad. Just that she cut out 90% of it.
You can lose weight by cutting out sugary products if that's what is giving you your surplus in calories. Or you can choose to fit it in. I choose to not drink sugary sodas and save at least 150 calories I can put towards food. Nothing wrong with wanting to lower your sugar intake. Nothing wrong with wanting to eat it either. It's about what works for individuals.
Ok - if it is not necessary for weight loss and OP does not have a medical condition then why cut it out 90%???? I assume she views sugar as "bad"...but she is welcome to come back in and clarify.
Why does she need to clarify it? What she does is her concern - this thread is not asking for peoples opinion on what she's doing, its asking if anybody is also heavily cutting back on sugar.
I'm sure a simple yes or no would suffice - then s troll on to the next thread !
white knight much?
All the time! Black Knight much?
But your original point is incorrect! It can be necessary.
0 -
I try to limit added sugar. I also limit fruit to no more than 2 pieces per day when I don't cycle. I have a lot of dates on long ride days. I feel best when following this.0
-
tennisdude2004 wrote: »MarziPanda95 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »MarziPanda95 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »MarziPanda95 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »MarziPanda95 wrote: »rebekahterkelsen wrote: »I eat (and highly recommend) zero added sugar. By eliminating processed foods, this is very simple. Sugar is one of the leading causes of inflammation in the body, which then causes a myriad of other issues, including exacerbating symptoms of arthritis and autoimmune diseases. I'm not talking about the natural sugars that occur in carbohydrates. Even with cutting sugar, I still get 40-50g of sugar per day. Your body and brain need the carbs and even some sugar- we just do not need the added, refined and processed sugar that is in packaged foods.
i recommend ignoring this 100%...
Then take your own advice and please stop bullying people.
No, he's right. She's giving awful advice. The last thing anyone should want is people taking her broscience as fact. Your body cannot tell the difference between added sugar and fruit sugar, for one, and all that stuff about 'inflammation in the body'? Nonsense. I suffer from several autoimmune diseases, sugar has absolutely zero affect on them. If anything I'm eating more sugar than I did when I was obese (as I now drink more tea and take 5-6 teaspoons of sugar per cup) and my immune disorders have stayed totally fine.
Then how do you explain fructose and sucrose intolerance?
Alright then. Bar any individual medical intolerances that most people do not have, your body cannot tell the difference between added sugar and fruit sugar.
Are the symptoms of glucose intolerance and fructose intolerance the same?
Also does high dietary glucose affect the livers fatty acids in the same way high dietary fructose 'can'?
How is that first question relevant when we're talking about the average person, without intolerances? The symptoms of food intolerance are pretty similar no matter what you're intolerant to, which is why if you suspect you have an intolerance, you need to do an elimination test.
Pretty much all fruits contain BOTH fructose and sucrose anyway, you do realise? An apricot, for example, has 0.9g of fructose but 5.9g of sucrose, per 100g. As the fructose is almost always bound to glucose as sucrose, a disaccharide, then yes, it pretty much has the same affect on the liver as just eating a teaspoon of sugar. Which, obviously, nobody would recommend.
The first is relevant to confirm or disprove that glucose and fructose are processed identically by the body!
I do realise this that fruit contains BOTH sucrose and fructose thanks (I also realise that a steak contains both fat and protein and the body has a great way of separating the two things). I was actually asking about glucose and fructose - you did understand that?
There is plenty of research to suggest that fructose is not metabolised by the body the same as glucose - which would therefore suggest the body does not process all sugars identically.
Well no, it's not relevant, because we're not talking about people who have an intolerance. Of course they're going to digest things differently if they have a medical problem. We're talking about your average body, here, which does process sugars the same way. And no, I didn't realise you were talking about glucose and fructose, because you never mentioned glucose. Not once. You said sucrose, so I assumed you meant sucrose. Sucrose is kind of just another name for fructose and glucose being bound together to form a disaccharide.
Yeah I can see how you can miss the word glucose - I had to re-read it several times!
And you are correct I didn't mention it once - I mentioned it twice!
"Are the symptoms of glucose intolerance and fructose intolerance the same?
Also does high dietary glucose affect the livers fatty acids in the same way high dietary fructose 'can'?"
I apologise. My steroid medication makes it very hard for me to make out words on a page and I have to get my sister to read it out - she must have gotten confused.
My point still stands that there's no difference.0 -
Has anyone read "sugar blues" by w. Dufty? What do you think about it?0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions