Anyone else going sugar free in 2015?
Replies
-
Ok. I suspect you'll be one of the only ones to block me, but it doesn't matter to me.ForecasterJason wrote: »Here's a peer-reviewed source on the dangers of sugar.
Lustig, R. H., Schmidt, L. A., & Brindis, C. D. (2012). Public health: The toxic truth about sugar. Nature, 482(7383), 27-29. doi:10.1038/482027a
I have to say, I have never used the block member option but you will be my first when it comes back into effect. It's just to much at this point.
0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Ok. I suspect you'll be one of the only ones to block me, but it doesn't matter to me.ForecasterJason wrote: »Here's a peer-reviewed source on the dangers of sugar.
Lustig, R. H., Schmidt, L. A., & Brindis, C. D. (2012). Public health: The toxic truth about sugar. Nature, 482(7383), 27-29. doi:10.1038/482027a
I have to say, I have never used the block member option but you will be my first when it comes back into effect. It's just to much at this point.
I'm still waiting for an actual peer reviewed study from you. Your calling that last article "peer reviewed" after you obviously failed to read it does make me understand M27's position on seeing further posts from you.-1 -
OP, I am trying to cut back on sugar a fair amount as well. I won't aim for ZERO sugar, because that is nearly impossible, but I eat too much sugar as is. Cutting dairy and sugar has yielded huge results for me with acne in the past, and in general I've been eating too many sweet treats and processed foods, and limiting sugar is a way to cut down on that.
People here get violent with their defense of sugar....if it makes them happy go for it, if not then not. I don't understand the anger at all. As far as I am concerned anyone can do whatever they want with their own bodies.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
There are many articles from trustworthy sources (academic journals) that address the issue, but someone already stated in this thread that there are no peer-reviewed sources on it. What I stated was partially true, since the journal is peer-reviewed but not the article itself.brianpperkins wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Ok. I suspect you'll be one of the only ones to block me, but it doesn't matter to me.ForecasterJason wrote: »Here's a peer-reviewed source on the dangers of sugar.
Lustig, R. H., Schmidt, L. A., & Brindis, C. D. (2012). Public health: The toxic truth about sugar. Nature, 482(7383), 27-29. doi:10.1038/482027a
I have to say, I have never used the block member option but you will be my first when it comes back into effect. It's just to much at this point.
I'm still waiting for an actual peer reviewed study from you. Your calling that last article "peer reviewed" after you obviously failed to read it does make me understand M27's position on seeing further posts from you.
And what MrM stated about my posts really has nothing to do with what I said in this thread. It just gave him more incentive.
0 -
There are many articles from "trustworthy sources" yet you post an opinion piece and call it peer reviewed? LOL-1
-
Thinking about putting the boys in time-out.
Can we add the whole "peer review" debate to the list of banned topics please?0 -
I don't think anyone else has had much of a problem with anything I've said there. Also, I'd be curious to see the actual posts I've made in that section where I've given advice (not just commenting on something) to someone that was wrong. I've commented on some things before that may be a bit controversial, but I've yet to see someone point out actual advice I've given to someone that has been wrong.
I suspect I won't be.ForecasterJason wrote: »
Ok. I suspect you'll be one of the only ones to block me, but it doesn't matter to me.ForecasterJason wrote: »Here's a peer-reviewed source on the dangers of sugar.
Lustig, R. H., Schmidt, L. A., & Brindis, C. D. (2012). Public health: The toxic truth about sugar. Nature, 482(7383), 27-29. doi:10.1038/482027a
I have to say, I have never used the block member option but you will be my first when it comes back into effect. It's just to much at this point.
I will look forward to not seeing your posts in the bulking forum where you give advice on bulking when you don't know how to run a bulk yourself. And you've been called out on that numerous times before.
0 -
0somuchbetter0 wrote: »Thinking about putting the boys in time-out.
Can we add the whole "peer review" debate to the list of banned topics please?
If one is going to attempt to cite science, they should at least be able to differentiate between research and opinion pieces. He failed miserably at that ... then claimed the opinion piece was peer reviewed. That's without getting into the credibility (or lack thereof) of Dr. Lustig.-1 -
The academic database I used marked the journal as scholarly/academic/peer-reviewed. If I was writing a college research paper, that article would have been appropriate.brianpperkins wrote: »There are many articles from "trustworthy sources" yet you post an opinion piece and call it peer reviewed? LOL
0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
The academic database I used marked the journal as scholarly/academic/peer-reviewed.brianpperkins wrote: »There are many articles from "trustworthy sources" yet you post an opinion piece and call it peer reviewed? LOL
DID YOU READ THE ARTICLE? YES OR NO?
Just because the journal is an academic journal does not mean that everything in it is a peer reviewed report on scientific research.-1 -
I was confusing peer-reviewed with scholarly, as the article definitely looked scholarly to me.brianpperkins wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
The academic database I used marked the journal as scholarly/academic/peer-reviewed.brianpperkins wrote: »There are many articles from "trustworthy sources" yet you post an opinion piece and call it peer reviewed? LOL
DID YOU READ THE ARTICLE? YES OR NO?
Just because the journal is an academic journal does not mean that everything in it is a peer reviewed report on scientific research.
0 -
Definitely going to cut back on processed sugars! Been trying little by little to make small changes every few weeks.0
-
I don't think sugar is "toxic" but Americans eat way more of the refined stuff than they did 40 years ago and that can't be good. I find that ADDED sugar produces cravings. I can have just one cookie but it's a struggle so the less I eat the better. I try to save my sugar calories for alcohol. Not a good thing either but I can't seal off every avenue of pleasure.
Fruit is fine.0 -
Man, I wonder what the university would say about Cell or Science.
Or those other tier 1 journals considered journals? lol.-1 -
This content has been removed.
-
brianpperkins wrote: »0somuchbetter0 wrote: »Thinking about putting the boys in time-out.
Can we add the whole "peer review" debate to the list of banned topics please?
If one is going to attempt to cite science, they should at least be able to differentiate between research and opinion pieces. He failed miserably at that ... then claimed the opinion piece was peer reviewed. That's without getting into the credibility (or lack thereof) of Dr. Lustig.
If Sugar was a deadly substance known to cause vicious health problems, it would be regulated with the rest of those substances by either the DEA or the ATF and would be unavailable to people under either 16, 18 or 21 depending on scientific findings.
the end.
0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
I was confusing peer-reviewed with scholarly, as the article definitely looked scholarly to me.brianpperkins wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
The academic database I used marked the journal as scholarly/academic/peer-reviewed.brianpperkins wrote: »There are many articles from "trustworthy sources" yet you post an opinion piece and call it peer reviewed? LOL
DID YOU READ THE ARTICLE? YES OR NO?
Just because the journal is an academic journal does not mean that everything in it is a peer reviewed report on scientific research.
Please just quit while you're behind. You confuse research and opinion ... peer reviewed and "scholarly" ... wow.-1 -
From what I can remember, some of the advice I've given wasn't 100% related to the actual process of bulking. In one example, I suggested that the poster who was only eating 27 grams of fat (which I think was 11% of his total calories) increase his fat intake. I pointed out the mistakes he made in his calculations. That wasn't directly related to the fact that he was trying to bulk. Likewise, I gave encouragement to the person of the "getting discouraged - lean bulk or cut" thread. And in a third example of what I posted in that section, I told Pwrlifter82 that (based on Lyle McDonald's numbers) she wouldn't have gained much more muscle had she gone with a more aggressive bulk her first time.ForecasterJason wrote: »
I don't think anyone else has had much of a problem with anything I've said there. Also, I'd be curious to see the actual posts I've made in that section where I've given advice (not just commenting on something) to someone that was wrong. I've commented on some things before that may be a bit controversial, but I've yet to see someone point out actual advice I've given to someone that has been wrong.
I suspect I won't be.ForecasterJason wrote: »
Ok. I suspect you'll be one of the only ones to block me, but it doesn't matter to me.ForecasterJason wrote: »Here's a peer-reviewed source on the dangers of sugar.
Lustig, R. H., Schmidt, L. A., & Brindis, C. D. (2012). Public health: The toxic truth about sugar. Nature, 482(7383), 27-29. doi:10.1038/482027a
I have to say, I have never used the block member option but you will be my first when it comes back into effect. It's just to much at this point.
I will look forward to not seeing your posts in the bulking forum where you give advice on bulking when you don't know how to run a bulk yourself. And you've been called out on that numerous times before.
You don't get it, you can't correct what people say in the bulking section because you don't understand bulking, because you haven't done it ever and you continuously say how you can't. So how can you possibly correct something you think is wrong??
0 -
LumberJacck wrote: »Back in the first half of the year I happened to read online about the Schaub family who went sugar free, and their health and energy improved. I thought I'd try this since I do have a few health and energy issues. I have no idea how long I'll last, but I thought I'd give it a try. Are there any others of you who will do the same?
Not me.
Sugar in some form is in a lot of pre-made foods as well as the sugars naturally occuring in fruits, vegetables and dairy. Truly eating no sugar at all would eliminate most foods. I think you would struggle to get adequate nutrients if you eliminated every food with sugar.
I'd say work on gradually reducing the processed foods and drinks you eat and choose more foods with naturally lower sugar content see how that goes for you.
Good luck.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
If Sugar was a deadly substance known to cause vicious health problems, it would be regulated with the rest of those substances by either the DEA or the ATF and would be unavailable to people under either 16, 18 or 21 depending on scientific findings.
the end.
Um, no. Sugar may not be toxic, but the idea that something can't be bad for you or it would be regulated is absurd. Minors could still buy cigarettes in some states until the 90s, despite loads of evidence that they were addictive and carcinogenic. Trans fats are still legal despite evidence that they are harmful. There are a myriad of other substances that either didn't become regulated until well after they were known to be harmful, or the harm is not extreme enough to warrant regulation.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Just eat it in moderation, a balanced diet and exercise will get your where you want to.....0
-
02suzzie2014 wrote: »Just eat it in moderation, a balanced diet and exercise will get your where you want to.....
^This... Does not have to be complicated.0 -
I agree with the posters about not eliminating completely from your diet. I am 100 pounds overweight. I am entering the new year with a truly open eye towards health being a goal and weight loss being a by product of me choosing to live in a healthy way. I am approaching this through an "all things in moderation" point of view as well. I hope to engage in a primarily mediterranean/dash style of eating to improve my health. But I know I will crave certain things simply too much. So while I adopt this as an overall way of eating and cooking. I plan to enjoy anything I enjoy in moderation periodically. Good luck.0
-
I think everything in moderation has been working for me- once it fits my macros. I don't add sugar to tea/drinks/my meals MOST OF THE TIMES but I do this so that I can enjoy more nutrient dense/filling foods without exceeding my calorie requirements and macros. I have yo yo dieted for so long and I realize that my mistake was completely cutting things out so that I feel deprived and restricted. Now I have been eating 1200 calories and losing weight quite nicely without feeling deprived-I have no reason to not lose weight now.0
-
No, not me. To go truly sugar free, one would have to eliminate all vegetables. Even eliminating processed sugar is pretty ridiculous, because you couldn't eat bread or pretty much anything you didn't cook yourself.0
-
Did I just see transfats? LOL. Ermagerds.0
-
That was fun0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 398.3K Introduce Yourself
- 44.7K Getting Started
- 261K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.4K Food and Nutrition
- 47.7K Recipes
- 233K Fitness and Exercise
- 462 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.7K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.5K Motivation and Support
- 8.4K Challenges
- 1.4K Debate Club
- 96.5K Chit-Chat
- 2.6K Fun and Games
- 4.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 17 News and Announcements
- 21 MyFitnessPal Academy
- 1.5K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions