The truth about sugar addiction from a former sugar addict
Replies
-
mamapeach910 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »poohpoohpeapod wrote: »
Sugar has proven to light up the same areas of the brain that cocaine does. Studies were done with PET scans of the brain.mamapeach910 wrote: »kelly30mad wrote: »I also am like u.. I use to snak on sugar snacks all day!!! I wld rather snack than eat a meal.. I've currently gone cold turkey and stopped them all together.. I've had really bad headaches and the shakes... Jus shows tha it is addictive and the more u eat the more u need more
I think you missed her point. It's not addictive. It's all about behavior and choice. You can get control.
Sometimes, it is helpful to give it all up for a time and get some distance to be able to see that.
It's more a compulsion which is about BEHAVIOR, than about addiction, which is about the SUBSTANCE.
Pain triggers dopamine release too. Is pain addictive?
Actually, it can be. A lot of times people who cut do so to feel the pain.
And once again, that just means they LIKE it, it doesn't mean they're addicted to it. Addiction is a disease with a whole bunch of other things wrapped up in it besides just liking how something feels and hiding things. Also, AGAIN, pain/pleasure is contextual. That cutter would be singing a different tune if they fell down a flight of stairs and broke a bone.
This is true as well.0 -
girlviernes wrote: »Agreed, I don't think it's fair to say it's "all in one's mind" particularly because the premise that the mind can be separated from physiology is flawed in the first place. At the same time, one of my points is that conceptualizing the experience as an addiction can actually make it harder to change, particularly if you buy into the ideas either that you need to eliminate foods from your diet and/or that you are powerless over food.
My personal experience (bearing in mind that I've been diagnosed with insulin resistance) is that a careful balancing of my diet allows me to eliminate sugar/starchy carb cravings, which makes this experience feel good and natural. I am not in a constant battle of wills. When I am a bit less balanced, I can feel some of the cravings reemerge. But, since i know what balance works for me, it is easy enough to return to my regular way of eating. At no time do I need to feel that I'm on the verge of disaster based on how I'm eating.
Yeah, my communication was poor. I understand what you are saying. For me, my sugar addiction was all in my he'd because I can moderate. If I eat a lot of sugar stuff on one day, then I've simply chosen to do so. I realize this is my stuff and not necessarily true for all.
Yes--I don't think the effect of eating sugar in certain ways that some people perceive is "all in your head." I do think (outside of the far less common issue of BED) that the idea that feeling cravings means you are an "addict" or can't control your diet is in one's head and is extremely unhelpful. What I found was that when I really thought about it I could connect certain reactions to food to the foods I ate and modify that.
Specifically, even without insulin resistance, as noted above, I do feel a spike followed by a crash of sorts if eating lots of mostly carbs (refined carbs, not fruit). This plus routinely getting too little sleep meant I'd be in a situation quite often where my will power was low and I wanted food just to perk me up. Rearranging my diet to balance consumption of carbs with protein and fat fixed this (so did getting more sleep, but I'm still bad at that) and made eating sensibly within my calories much easier. I think everything should think this through and figure it out. But it's not accurate to claim that this pretty common and normal reaction makes one an addict and to jump from all sugar all the time to the idea that one must never eat sugar or lose it because it has power over you seems quite harmful.
Now if I eat poorly in certain ways I still get the reaction that makes will power more challenging, but being conscious of how it works helps me realize I can avoid it or should just eat a piece of cheese or some chicken or something (or have some coffee). Thinking I was an addict would seem to make a binge much more likely.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »girlviernes wrote: »Agreed, I don't think it's fair to say it's "all in one's mind" particularly because the premise that the mind can be separated from physiology is flawed in the first place. At the same time, one of my points is that conceptualizing the experience as an addiction can actually make it harder to change, particularly if you buy into the ideas either that you need to eliminate foods from your diet and/or that you are powerless over food.
My personal experience (bearing in mind that I've been diagnosed with insulin resistance) is that a careful balancing of my diet allows me to eliminate sugar/starchy carb cravings, which makes this experience feel good and natural. I am not in a constant battle of wills. When I am a bit less balanced, I can feel some of the cravings reemerge. But, since i know what balance works for me, it is easy enough to return to my regular way of eating. At no time do I need to feel that I'm on the verge of disaster based on how I'm eating.
Yeah, my communication was poor. I understand what you are saying. For me, my sugar addiction was all in my he'd because I can moderate. If I eat a lot of sugar stuff on one day, then I've simply chosen to do so. I realize this is my stuff and not necessarily true for all.
Yes--I don't think the effect of eating sugar in certain ways that some people perceive is "all in your head." I do think (outside of the far less common issue of BED) that the idea that feeling cravings means you are an "addict" or can't control your diet is in one's head and is extremely unhelpful. What I found was that when I really thought about it I could connect certain reactions to food to the foods I ate and modify that.
Specifically, even without insulin resistance, as noted above, I do feel a spike followed by a crash of sorts if eating lots of mostly carbs (refined carbs, not fruit). This plus routinely getting too little sleep meant I'd be in a situation quite often where my will power was low and I wanted food just to perk me up. Rearranging my diet to balance consumption of carbs with protein and fat fixed this (so did getting more sleep, but I'm still bad at that) and made eating sensibly within my calories much easier. I think everything should think this through and figure it out. But it's not accurate to claim that this pretty common and normal reaction makes one an addict and to jump from all sugar all the time to the idea that one must never eat sugar or lose it because it has power over you seems quite harmful.
Now if I eat poorly in certain ways I still get the reaction that makes will power more challenging, but being conscious of how it works helps me realize I can avoid it or should just eat a piece of cheese or some chicken or something (or have some coffee). Thinking I was an addict would seem to make a binge much more likely.
Makes sense. 0 -
girlviernes wrote: »Kyta, you need to provide direct links, not just a study with the links that lead to your opinion.
No, she's saying g she thought she had a sugar addiction but figured out the true issue is moderation.
Our body does not know the difference between sugar, and no sugar is good or bad, therefore if you're limiting sugar it makes sense to moderate wherever you see fit.
Your last two studies are pretty weak because of the manner the studies were conducted.
Well fruit is different due to the fiber content.
Basically, because of my IR, I focus on keeping blood sugar stable. Fruit generally does not have a problematic glycemic load (banana might, not sure) due to fiber. So various sources of sugar/starch can be balanced in different ways, simple portion control, combining with protein, fiber, fat, and perhaps also certain spices like cinnamon.
Yes, I understand the fiber content and the special issues when people have insulin resistance and diabetes, for example, and balance of macros and what we choose to eat based on how we feel But, without an underlying medical condition, it seems to me your body would process all sugar the same. That's where I'm coming from.
Sugars are different on the elemental level. There are differences in how the body processes HFCS, sucrose, fructose, glucose, dextrose, lactose, etc....
Straight fructose emptys more quickly from the stomach than glucose. Fructose (like in pop) can be processed into fat by the liver without being converted to glucose first, like other carbs. Fructose, unlike other carbs, does not down-regulate DNL. The fat that the liver makes with fructose is more likely to become visceral and liver fat.
The sugar in fruit is processed differently than the sugar in pop, which is processed differently than the sugar in a cake, due to dosage and macros/fiber. This can be further changed by the context the sugar was eaten in. All-night cola binge while writing a final exam? Dextrose (glucose+water) sweetened protein recovery drink? Apple slices with some peanut butter as an afternoon snack? All different dosages, sugar types, and contexts, and different impacts to how long digestion takes place and where the calories end up (fat, glycogen storage, immediate metabolic use). Add in metabolic differences (ie sugar sensitive/diabetic/metabolic disease), and there can be a huge difference between the impact of sugar from one source over another.0 -
herrspoons wrote: »girlviernes wrote: »Kyta, you need to provide direct links, not just a study with the links that lead to your opinion.
No, she's saying g she thought she had a sugar addiction but figured out the true issue is moderation.
Our body does not know the difference between sugar, and no sugar is good or bad, therefore if you're limiting sugar it makes sense to moderate wherever you see fit.
Your last two studies are pretty weak because of the manner the studies were conducted.
Well fruit is different due to the fiber content.
Basically, because of my IR, I focus on keeping blood sugar stable. Fruit generally does not have a problematic glycemic load (banana might, not sure) due to fiber. So various sources of sugar/starch can be balanced in different ways, simple portion control, combining with protein, fiber, fat, and perhaps also certain spices like cinnamon.
Yes, I understand the fiber content and the special issues when people have insulin resistance and diabetes, for example, and balance of macros and what we choose to eat based on how we feel But, without an underlying medical condition, it seems to me your body would process all sugar the same. That's where I'm coming from.
Sugars are different on the elemental level. There are differences in how the body processes HFCS, sucrose, fructose, glucose, dextrose, lactose, etc....
Straight fructose emptys more quickly from the stomach than glucose. Fructose (like in pop) can be processed into fat by the liver without being converted to glucose first, like other carbs. Fructose, unlike other carbs, does not down-regulate DNL. The fat that the liver makes with fructose is more likely to become visceral and liver fat.
The sugar in fruit is processed differently than the sugar in pop, which is processed differently than the sugar in a cake, due to dosage and macros/fiber. This can be further changed by the context the sugar was eaten in. All-night cola binge while writing a final exam? Dextrose (glucose+water) sweetened protein recovery drink? Apple slices with some peanut butter as an afternoon snack? All different dosages, sugar types, and contexts, and different impacts to how long digestion takes place and where the calories end up (fat, glycogen storage, immediate metabolic use). Add in metabolic differences (ie sugar sensitive/diabetic/metabolic disease), and there can be a huge difference between the impact of sugar from one source over another.
And in the end, as long as you eat carbs - including sugars - in moderation, it makes absolutely no difference.
HFCS is fructose. Sucrose is a glucose/fructose disaccharide. Sugars are only ever converted to fat if they cannot be used in the short to medium term. Fat sourced from excess sugar can be burnt up by calorie deficit.
You're either trolling or are simply ignorant of the subject matter and should stop posting either way.
HFCS is used as a sweetener as it is sweeter than sucrose, and so you can use less of it (it is cheaper). In soda, the mix is about 55% fructose to 45% glucose. Straight fructose is quite sweet, and tends to get people to stop drinking it (saiety). Adding glucose lessens saiety, so someone could drink sodas all through a long road trip, and still be hungry for doritos, despite drinking hundreds of calories.
When fat is burned all over the body, and stored preferentially in visceral fat, a person's visceral fat amount could theoretically go up while eating in a calorie deficit.
Someone eating at maintenance could also burn fat from all over the body, while storing visceral fat preferentially - achieving that "apple" look.0 -
girlviernes: I really can relate to your story. Congratulations on your success, and the wisdom you've gained. I have considered myself a "sugar addict" for about 18 years. Through the years, I've either been "on track" or "way off track." I couldn't seem to find any middle ground where I could eat desserts and treats moderately.
Recently, I abstained from sweets from Aug 1 - Christmas. I felt fantastic, and after the first few traumatic weeks of abstinance, I didn't miss sweets at all. In fact, I just felt great to be free of the compulsion to eat! As you know, introducing sweets again after loving life without them is like jumping in a river when you know the waterfall is nearby.
With some trial and error over the last month, I've discovered that I can have a treat that's under 75 calories without tempting that old monstrous compulsive feeling to return. I'm satisfied with that, and I'm still going to cautiously watch myself. Self-deception can be a sneaky thing!
Good luck to you in your efforts to be at peace with all foods!
0 -
herrspoons wrote: »girlviernes wrote: »Kyta, you need to provide direct links, not just a study with the links that lead to your opinion.
No, she's saying g she thought she had a sugar addiction but figured out the true issue is moderation.
Our body does not know the difference between sugar, and no sugar is good or bad, therefore if you're limiting sugar it makes sense to moderate wherever you see fit.
Your last two studies are pretty weak because of the manner the studies were conducted.
Well fruit is different due to the fiber content.
Basically, because of my IR, I focus on keeping blood sugar stable. Fruit generally does not have a problematic glycemic load (banana might, not sure) due to fiber. So various sources of sugar/starch can be balanced in different ways, simple portion control, combining with protein, fiber, fat, and perhaps also certain spices like cinnamon.
Yes, I understand the fiber content and the special issues when people have insulin resistance and diabetes, for example, and balance of macros and what we choose to eat based on how we feel But, without an underlying medical condition, it seems to me your body would process all sugar the same. That's where I'm coming from.
Sugars are different on the elemental level. There are differences in how the body processes HFCS, sucrose, fructose, glucose, dextrose, lactose, etc....
Straight fructose emptys more quickly from the stomach than glucose. Fructose (like in pop) can be processed into fat by the liver without being converted to glucose first, like other carbs. Fructose, unlike other carbs, does not down-regulate DNL. The fat that the liver makes with fructose is more likely to become visceral and liver fat.
The sugar in fruit is processed differently than the sugar in pop, which is processed differently than the sugar in a cake, due to dosage and macros/fiber. This can be further changed by the context the sugar was eaten in. All-night cola binge while writing a final exam? Dextrose (glucose+water) sweetened protein recovery drink? Apple slices with some peanut butter as an afternoon snack? All different dosages, sugar types, and contexts, and different impacts to how long digestion takes place and where the calories end up (fat, glycogen storage, immediate metabolic use). Add in metabolic differences (ie sugar sensitive/diabetic/metabolic disease), and there can be a huge difference between the impact of sugar from one source over another.
And in the end, as long as you eat carbs - including sugars - in moderation, it makes absolutely no difference.
HFCS is fructose. Sucrose is a glucose/fructose disaccharide. Sugars are only ever converted to fat if they cannot be used in the short to medium term. Fat sourced from excess sugar can be burnt up by calorie deficit.
You're either trolling or are simply ignorant of the subject matter and should stop posting either way.
Yep. Moderation is the key in all foods for weight loss as well as nutritional balance. An excess of sugar is not going to make a person gain weight, just as low sugar will not make someone lose weight.
0 -
herrspoons wrote: »girlviernes wrote: »Kyta, you need to provide direct links, not just a study with the links that lead to your opinion.
No, she's saying g she thought she had a sugar addiction but figured out the true issue is moderation.
Our body does not know the difference between sugar, and no sugar is good or bad, therefore if you're limiting sugar it makes sense to moderate wherever you see fit.
Your last two studies are pretty weak because of the manner the studies were conducted.
Well fruit is different due to the fiber content.
Basically, because of my IR, I focus on keeping blood sugar stable. Fruit generally does not have a problematic glycemic load (banana might, not sure) due to fiber. So various sources of sugar/starch can be balanced in different ways, simple portion control, combining with protein, fiber, fat, and perhaps also certain spices like cinnamon.
Yes, I understand the fiber content and the special issues when people have insulin resistance and diabetes, for example, and balance of macros and what we choose to eat based on how we feel But, without an underlying medical condition, it seems to me your body would process all sugar the same. That's where I'm coming from.
Sugars are different on the elemental level. There are differences in how the body processes HFCS, sucrose, fructose, glucose, dextrose, lactose, etc....
Straight fructose emptys more quickly from the stomach than glucose. Fructose (like in pop) can be processed into fat by the liver without being converted to glucose first, like other carbs. Fructose, unlike other carbs, does not down-regulate DNL. The fat that the liver makes with fructose is more likely to become visceral and liver fat.
The sugar in fruit is processed differently than the sugar in pop, which is processed differently than the sugar in a cake, due to dosage and macros/fiber. This can be further changed by the context the sugar was eaten in. All-night cola binge while writing a final exam? Dextrose (glucose+water) sweetened protein recovery drink? Apple slices with some peanut butter as an afternoon snack? All different dosages, sugar types, and contexts, and different impacts to how long digestion takes place and where the calories end up (fat, glycogen storage, immediate metabolic use). Add in metabolic differences (ie sugar sensitive/diabetic/metabolic disease), and there can be a huge difference between the impact of sugar from one source over another.
And in the end, as long as you eat carbs - including sugars - in moderation, it makes absolutely no difference.
HFCS is fructose. Sucrose is a glucose/fructose disaccharide. Sugars are only ever converted to fat if they cannot be used in the short to medium term. Fat sourced from excess sugar can be burnt up by calorie deficit.
You're either trolling or are simply ignorant of the subject matter and should stop posting either way.
HFCS is used as a sweetener as it is sweeter than sucrose, and so you can use less of it (it is cheaper). In soda, the mix is about 55% fructose to 45% glucose. Straight fructose is quite sweet, and tends to get people to stop drinking it (saiety). Adding glucose lessens saiety, so someone could drink sodas all through a long road trip, and still be hungry for doritos, despite drinking hundreds of calories.
When fat is burned all over the body, and stored preferentially in visceral fat, a person's visceral fat amount could theoretically go up while eating in a calorie deficit.
Someone eating at maintenance could also burn fat from all over the body, while storing visceral fat preferentially - achieving that "apple" look.
As to the bold party-what?
It's all about moderation.0 -
girlviernes: I really can relate to your story. Congratulations on your success, and the wisdom you've gained. I have considered myself a "sugar addict" for about 18 years. Through the years, I've either been "on track" or "way off track." I couldn't seem to find any middle ground where I could eat desserts and treats moderately.
Recently, I abstained from sweets from Aug 1 - Christmas. I felt fantastic, and after the first few traumatic weeks of abstinance, I didn't miss sweets at all. In fact, I just felt great to be free of the compulsion to eat! As you know, introducing sweets again after loving life without them is like jumping in a river when you know the waterfall is nearby.
With some trial and error over the last month, I've discovered that I can have a treat that's under 75 calories without tempting that old monstrous compulsive feeling to return. I'm satisfied with that, and I'm still going to cautiously watch myself. Self-deception can be a sneaky thing!
Good luck to you in your efforts to be at peace with all foods!
I love the sharing of experience like this, because it looks like you've found a middle ground and are practicing middle-ground and moderation, even if it is with caution. You can do this. 0 -
girlviernes wrote: »
About 3 years ago I decided that this was an addiction, and I needed to go completely unprocessed. For about 4-6 months I was extremely committed and ate a near ideal diet. I wasn't counting calories, but I still lost about 45 lbs. It was pretty amazing, and very quickly my sugar cravings went away. However, on those occasions that I did have "processed" foods or even "healthy" versions of sugary foods, I would feel a sense of panic and compulsion to eat more.
I read your profile. Your post left out an important fact (you are insulin resistant).
Good luck with your blood work and getting back down to a healthy weight.
For most people I think sugar fear mongering is counter productive. There are thousands of people on this site in perfect health who lost weight while consuming lots of sugar. #IIFYM
0 -
girlviernes wrote: »Kyta, you need to provide direct links, not just a study with the links that lead to your opinion.
No, she's saying g she thought she had a sugar addiction but figured out the true issue is moderation.
Our body does not know the difference between sugar, and no sugar is good or bad, therefore if you're limiting sugar it makes sense to moderate wherever you see fit.
Your last two studies are pretty weak because of the manner the studies were conducted.
Well fruit is different due to the fiber content.
Basically, because of my IR, I focus on keeping blood sugar stable. Fruit generally does not have a problematic glycemic load (banana might, not sure) due to fiber. So various sources of sugar/starch can be balanced in different ways, simple portion control, combining with protein, fiber, fat, and perhaps also certain spices like cinnamon.
Yes, I understand the fiber content and the special issues when people have insulin resistance and diabetes, for example, and balance of macros and what we choose to eat based on how we feel But, without an underlying medical condition, it seems to me your body would process all sugar the same. That's where I'm coming from.
Sugars are different on the elemental level. There are differences in how the body processes HFCS, sucrose, fructose, glucose, dextrose, lactose, etc....
Straight fructose emptys more quickly from the stomach than glucose. Fructose (like in pop) can be processed into fat by the liver without being converted to glucose first, like other carbs. Fructose, unlike other carbs, does not down-regulate DNL. The fat that the liver makes with fructose is more likely to become visceral and liver fat.
The sugar in fruit is processed differently than the sugar in pop, which is processed differently than the sugar in a cake, due to dosage and macros/fiber. This can be further changed by the context the sugar was eaten in. All-night cola binge while writing a final exam? Dextrose (glucose+water) sweetened protein recovery drink? Apple slices with some peanut butter as an afternoon snack? All different dosages, sugar types, and contexts, and different impacts to how long digestion takes place and where the calories end up (fat, glycogen storage, immediate metabolic use). Add in metabolic differences (ie sugar sensitive/diabetic/metabolic disease), and there can be a huge difference between the impact of sugar from one source over another.
Fructose and glucose are metabolized differently by the body, however the levels of sugar being consumed in a calorie deficit makes this irrelevant.
With sugar the only time this becomes an issue is when it is consumed in extraordinarily high doses and a lot of the negative studies done on sugar are using exaggerated volumes to prove their points.
0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »With sugar the only time this becomes an issue is when it is consumed in extraordinarily high doses and a lot of the negative studies done on sugar are using exaggerated volumes to prove their points.
I read a study of fructose vs glucose which aimed to get 25% of calories from the sweetener as a drink while maintaining weight, however the result in the free living subjects was a calorie intake of 108% of TDEE. This is often the basis of the argument anyway - that sugar in the form of beverages increases total calorie intake, it has no micronutrients, so don't bother.0 -
noexcusesjustresults2014 wrote: »girlviernes wrote: »
About 3 years ago I decided that this was an addiction, and I needed to go completely unprocessed. For about 4-6 months I was extremely committed and ate a near ideal diet. I wasn't counting calories, but I still lost about 45 lbs. It was pretty amazing, and very quickly my sugar cravings went away. However, on those occasions that I did have "processed" foods or even "healthy" versions of sugary foods, I would feel a sense of panic and compulsion to eat more.
I read your profile. Your post left out an important fact (you are insulin resistant).
Good luck with your blood work and getting back down to a healthy weight.
For most people I think sugar fear mongering is counter productive. There are thousands of people on this site in perfect health who lost weight while consuming lots of sugar. #IIFYM
Well I don't think I am fear mongering about sugar, quite the opposite. You are correct though, the balance that works for me which involved moderation of certain carbohydrates is informed by my insulin resistance - and those without the condition may find that they can balance a much higher intake perfectly well. Even those with the exact same condition might find something else works best for them.0 -
girlviernes: I really can relate to your story. Congratulations on your success, and the wisdom you've gained. I have considered myself a "sugar addict" for about 18 years. Through the years, I've either been "on track" or "way off track." I couldn't seem to find any middle ground where I could eat desserts and treats moderately.
Recently, I abstained from sweets from Aug 1 - Christmas. I felt fantastic, and after the first few traumatic weeks of abstinance, I didn't miss sweets at all. In fact, I just felt great to be free of the compulsion to eat! As you know, introducing sweets again after loving life without them is like jumping in a river when you know the waterfall is nearby.
With some trial and error over the last month, I've discovered that I can have a treat that's under 75 calories without tempting that old monstrous compulsive feeling to return. I'm satisfied with that, and I'm still going to cautiously watch myself. Self-deception can be a sneaky thing!
Good luck to you in your efforts to be at peace with all foods!
I'm very happy for you. It's nice that you've found a way to still include treats in your plan. Hopefully over time your confidence with your ability to manage sugar will grow even more. It feels so liberating.
I do like your focus on watching for self-deception though! I've been overdoing in on Quest bars, so I really need to watch that!
0 -
girlviernes wrote: »Agreed, I don't think it's fair to say it's "all in one's mind" particularly because the premise that the mind can be separated from physiology is flawed in the first place. At the same time, one of my points is that conceptualizing the experience as an addiction can actually make it harder to change, particularly if you buy into the ideas either that you need to eliminate foods from your diet and/or that you are powerless over food.
My personal experience (bearing in mind that I've been diagnosed with insulin resistance) is that a careful balancing of my diet allows me to eliminate sugar/starchy carb cravings, which makes this experience feel good and natural. I am not in a constant battle of wills. When I am a bit less balanced, I can feel some of the cravings reemerge. But, since i know what balance works for me, it is easy enough to return to my regular way of eating. At no time do I need to feel that I'm on the verge of disaster based on how I'm eating.
Conceptualizing my binging as an addiction was the only thing that made it possible for me to deal with my binge eating. I'd been on plenty of diets, met with dietitians, hired trainers, lost weight, gained weight, etc. etc.
Once I started thinking about my binge eating as an addiction, everything made total sense. I am a compulsive overeater! It felt like I had slipped on a shoe that finally fit.
From there, it was pretty simple -- go to meetings, get a sponsor, work the steps. Boom. Done. I stopped eating my trigger foods, I stopped binging. I lost 75 pounds and have kept 40 of those pounds off for nearly 10 years (35 pounds crept back on because of CICO, not binge eating) (and I'm currently down 20 of those pounds because CICO yay!).
The bonus is that I've also worked through the emotional and spiritual issues that had me turning to binge eating for solace in the first place.
Yay to people who can deal with their binge eating on their own. That's wonderful!
And yay to anonymous programs for people like me, who needed help.
First of all, congratulations for all the hard work you did and your success with it. I'm glad you found a program and plan that worked so well for you. I am skeptical about food addiction as a construct, but instead of being disempowered by the idea, it sounds like you took the reigns and worked your butt off to address your challenges.
0 -
girlviernes wrote: »
First of all, congratulations for all the hard work you did and your success with it. I'm glad you found a program and plan that worked so well for you. I am skeptical about food addiction as a construct, but instead of being disempowered by the idea, it sounds like you took the reigns and worked your butt off to address your challenges.
I had lost significant weight (at least 50 pounds both times) twice -- once in my 20s and once in my 30s -- and I always gained it back. Losing weight never fixed my binge eating.
With the addiction model, I finally had the right tools to fix my problem. I don't binge eat any more.
But, it's so much more than that. I don't feel shame around food any more. I don't tell myself lies and I don't tell other people lies about my food. I don't worry about getting fat or being fat any more. I don't judge my body in hateful terms any more (if anything, I'm a bit too forgiving). If my weight fluctuates (and I'm here on MFP because it fluctuated up by 20 pounds over the past four or so years) I don't feel desperate or ashamed any more.
I've been reading the "Confession Time (No Judgement!)" thread and nodding my head in recognition of many of the food and body games people are describing, and I'm thrilled that I just don't have those fears and shame around food and my body any more.
Certainly people can achieve what I've achieved without going to addiction programs. They can see a therapist, or read self-help books, or just do CICO and have an amazing journey of self-discovery.
But whichever path they choose, they have to do the work. That's the stumbling block, isn't it. People don't want to do the work. They see their circumstances as fate, rather than a starting point, and use fate as an excuse to not do the work. That applies as much to the person who needs only to lower their intake by 100 calories a day as it does to the person who needs mental health intervention.
I believe in the addiction model, but I don't believe it's an excuse to not do the work. If you think you are addicted to food , it's your responsibility to get unaddicted. Bemoaning your binge eating while doing nothing about it is selfish and immature.
I don't mind people offering criticism in sugar addiction threads. They've got a valid point -- as far as I know, sugar isn't an addictive substance, and "sugar addiction" for many people really is shorthand for "I eat without forethought and I'm completely uneducated about nutrition." I can see how that would be irritating to recovering addicts who know the pain of addiction and the work of recovery.
But I wish people would make some room in their criticism for the possibility that 12 step programs do work for some people, and that for some people, it's the only thing that works.0 -
I feel very similarly to you. Great that there are different paths to the same end. They all involve figuring out what works and doing it.
Kudos 0 -
This content has been removed.
-
prettykitty1515 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »girlviernes wrote: »Kyta, you need to provide direct links, not just a study with the links that lead to your opinion.
No, she's saying g she thought she had a sugar addiction but figured out the true issue is moderation.
Our body does not know the difference between sugar, and no sugar is good or bad, therefore if you're limiting sugar it makes sense to moderate wherever you see fit.
Your last two studies are pretty weak because of the manner the studies were conducted.
Well fruit is different due to the fiber content.
Basically, because of my IR, I focus on keeping blood sugar stable. Fruit generally does not have a problematic glycemic load (banana might, not sure) due to fiber. So various sources of sugar/starch can be balanced in different ways, simple portion control, combining with protein, fiber, fat, and perhaps also certain spices like cinnamon.
Yes, I understand the fiber content and the special issues when people have insulin resistance and diabetes, for example, and balance of macros and what we choose to eat based on how we feel But, without an underlying medical condition, it seems to me your body would process all sugar the same. That's where I'm coming from.
Sugars are different on the elemental level. There are differences in how the body processes HFCS, sucrose, fructose, glucose, dextrose, lactose, etc....
Straight fructose emptys more quickly from the stomach than glucose. Fructose (like in pop) can be processed into fat by the liver without being converted to glucose first, like other carbs. Fructose, unlike other carbs, does not down-regulate DNL. The fat that the liver makes with fructose is more likely to become visceral and liver fat.
The sugar in fruit is processed differently than the sugar in pop, which is processed differently than the sugar in a cake, due to dosage and macros/fiber. This can be further changed by the context the sugar was eaten in. All-night cola binge while writing a final exam? Dextrose (glucose+water) sweetened protein recovery drink? Apple slices with some peanut butter as an afternoon snack? All different dosages, sugar types, and contexts, and different impacts to how long digestion takes place and where the calories end up (fat, glycogen storage, immediate metabolic use). Add in metabolic differences (ie sugar sensitive/diabetic/metabolic disease), and there can be a huge difference between the impact of sugar from one source over another.
Fructose and glucose are metabolized differently by the body, however the levels of sugar being consumed in a calorie deficit makes this irrelevant.
With sugar the only time this becomes an issue is when it is consumed in extraordinarily high doses and a lot of the negative studies done on sugar are using exaggerated volumes to prove their points.
The American Heart Association recommends a daily intake of added sugar of no more than 5 teaspoons for women and 9 teaspoons for men.
http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/NutritionCenter/HealthyEating/By-Any-Other-Name-Its-Still-Sweetener_UCM_437368_Article.jsp
They focus on sugar in general, saying they don't differentiate, and they say concerns about high fructose corn syrup are misplaced, which basically kills the sugar is evil argument.
And, again--they are talking about moderation. That's a good thing.
0 -
prettykitty1515 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »girlviernes wrote: »Kyta, you need to provide direct links, not just a study with the links that lead to your opinion.
No, she's saying g she thought she had a sugar addiction but figured out the true issue is moderation.
Our body does not know the difference between sugar, and no sugar is good or bad, therefore if you're limiting sugar it makes sense to moderate wherever you see fit.
Your last two studies are pretty weak because of the manner the studies were conducted.
Well fruit is different due to the fiber content.
Basically, because of my IR, I focus on keeping blood sugar stable. Fruit generally does not have a problematic glycemic load (banana might, not sure) due to fiber. So various sources of sugar/starch can be balanced in different ways, simple portion control, combining with protein, fiber, fat, and perhaps also certain spices like cinnamon.
Yes, I understand the fiber content and the special issues when people have insulin resistance and diabetes, for example, and balance of macros and what we choose to eat based on how we feel But, without an underlying medical condition, it seems to me your body would process all sugar the same. That's where I'm coming from.
Sugars are different on the elemental level. There are differences in how the body processes HFCS, sucrose, fructose, glucose, dextrose, lactose, etc....
Straight fructose emptys more quickly from the stomach than glucose. Fructose (like in pop) can be processed into fat by the liver without being converted to glucose first, like other carbs. Fructose, unlike other carbs, does not down-regulate DNL. The fat that the liver makes with fructose is more likely to become visceral and liver fat.
The sugar in fruit is processed differently than the sugar in pop, which is processed differently than the sugar in a cake, due to dosage and macros/fiber. This can be further changed by the context the sugar was eaten in. All-night cola binge while writing a final exam? Dextrose (glucose+water) sweetened protein recovery drink? Apple slices with some peanut butter as an afternoon snack? All different dosages, sugar types, and contexts, and different impacts to how long digestion takes place and where the calories end up (fat, glycogen storage, immediate metabolic use). Add in metabolic differences (ie sugar sensitive/diabetic/metabolic disease), and there can be a huge difference between the impact of sugar from one source over another.
Fructose and glucose are metabolized differently by the body, however the levels of sugar being consumed in a calorie deficit makes this irrelevant.
With sugar the only time this becomes an issue is when it is consumed in extraordinarily high doses and a lot of the negative studies done on sugar are using exaggerated volumes to prove their points.
The American Heart Association recommends a daily intake of added sugar of no more than 5 teaspoons for women and 9 teaspoons for men.
http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/NutritionCenter/HealthyEating/By-Any-Other-Name-Its-Still-Sweetener_UCM_437368_Article.jsp
They focus on sugar in general, saying they don't differentiate, and they say concerns about high fructose corn syrup are misplaced, which basically kills the sugar is evil argument.
And, again--they are talking about moderation. That's a good thing.
Please stop saying sugar is evil. It doesn't help anything.
The website states to worry about more than HFCS - but it does single out added sugar - the limit is for added sugar, not for the naturally occurring sugar in foods like dairy, fruit or vegetables. HFCS in pop is one of the most significant contributers to added sugar intake in the North American diet.
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1819573#Conclusions
This is one of the studies that the recommendation to limit added sugars is based on. Average adult American takes in 14.9% of calories from added sugar. Significantly higher cardiac deaths found among population consuming more than 25% calories from added sugar than 10% calories from added sugar. About 10% of total population consumed more than 25% of calories from added sugar. Seems like that study where 25% of daily calories was administered as fructose or glucose wasn't as exaggerated as you think. Full text does not appear to be available for free online.
The 5 teaspoons added sugar means about 25 g/sugar (100 calories)/day for a woman. If this is what you mean by moderation, then your moderation is my limited.
Edited to clarify study was regarding added sugars.0 -
prettykitty1515 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »girlviernes wrote: »Kyta, you need to provide direct links, not just a study with the links that lead to your opinion.
No, she's saying g she thought she had a sugar addiction but figured out the true issue is moderation.
Our body does not know the difference between sugar, and no sugar is good or bad, therefore if you're limiting sugar it makes sense to moderate wherever you see fit.
Your last two studies are pretty weak because of the manner the studies were conducted.
Well fruit is different due to the fiber content.
Basically, because of my IR, I focus on keeping blood sugar stable. Fruit generally does not have a problematic glycemic load (banana might, not sure) due to fiber. So various sources of sugar/starch can be balanced in different ways, simple portion control, combining with protein, fiber, fat, and perhaps also certain spices like cinnamon.
Yes, I understand the fiber content and the special issues when people have insulin resistance and diabetes, for example, and balance of macros and what we choose to eat based on how we feel But, without an underlying medical condition, it seems to me your body would process all sugar the same. That's where I'm coming from.
Sugars are different on the elemental level. There are differences in how the body processes HFCS, sucrose, fructose, glucose, dextrose, lactose, etc....
Straight fructose emptys more quickly from the stomach than glucose. Fructose (like in pop) can be processed into fat by the liver without being converted to glucose first, like other carbs. Fructose, unlike other carbs, does not down-regulate DNL. The fat that the liver makes with fructose is more likely to become visceral and liver fat.
The sugar in fruit is processed differently than the sugar in pop, which is processed differently than the sugar in a cake, due to dosage and macros/fiber. This can be further changed by the context the sugar was eaten in. All-night cola binge while writing a final exam? Dextrose (glucose+water) sweetened protein recovery drink? Apple slices with some peanut butter as an afternoon snack? All different dosages, sugar types, and contexts, and different impacts to how long digestion takes place and where the calories end up (fat, glycogen storage, immediate metabolic use). Add in metabolic differences (ie sugar sensitive/diabetic/metabolic disease), and there can be a huge difference between the impact of sugar from one source over another.
Fructose and glucose are metabolized differently by the body, however the levels of sugar being consumed in a calorie deficit makes this irrelevant.
With sugar the only time this becomes an issue is when it is consumed in extraordinarily high doses and a lot of the negative studies done on sugar are using exaggerated volumes to prove their points.
The American Heart Association recommends a daily intake of added sugar of no more than 5 teaspoons for women and 9 teaspoons for men.
http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/NutritionCenter/HealthyEating/By-Any-Other-Name-Its-Still-Sweetener_UCM_437368_Article.jsp
They focus on sugar in general, saying they don't differentiate, and they say concerns about high fructose corn syrup are misplaced, which basically kills the sugar is evil argument.
And, again--they are talking about moderation. That's a good thing.
Please stop saying sugar is evil. It doesn't help anything.
The website states to worry about more than HFCS - but it does single out added sugar - the limit is for added sugar, not for the naturally occurring sugar in foods like dairy, fruit or vegetables. HFCS in pop is one of the most significant contributers to added sugar intake in the North American diet.
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1819573#Conclusions
This is one of the studies that the recommendation to limit added sugars is based on. Average adult American takes in 14.9% of calories from added sugar. Significantly higher cardiac deaths found among population consuming more than 25% calories from added sugar than 10% calories from added sugar. About 10% of total population consumed more than 25% of calories from added sugar. Seems like that study where 25% of daily calories was administered as fructose or glucose wasn't as exaggerated as you think. Full text does not appear to be available for free online.
The 5 teaspoons added sugar means about 25 g/sugar (100 calories)/day for a woman. If this is what you mean by moderation, then your moderation is my limited.
Edited to clarify study was regarding added sugars.
Ummm..... I didn't say sugar is evil and you know it. You are intentionally trying to one up.
I said the article kills that argument.
Moderation is key.0 -
prettykitty1515 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »girlviernes wrote: »Kyta, you need to provide direct links, not just a study with the links that lead to your opinion.
No, she's saying g she thought she had a sugar addiction but figured out the true issue is moderation.
Our body does not know the difference between sugar, and no sugar is good or bad, therefore if you're limiting sugar it makes sense to moderate wherever you see fit.
Your last two studies are pretty weak because of the manner the studies were conducted.
Well fruit is different due to the fiber content.
Basically, because of my IR, I focus on keeping blood sugar stable. Fruit generally does not have a problematic glycemic load (banana might, not sure) due to fiber. So various sources of sugar/starch can be balanced in different ways, simple portion control, combining with protein, fiber, fat, and perhaps also certain spices like cinnamon.
Yes, I understand the fiber content and the special issues when people have insulin resistance and diabetes, for example, and balance of macros and what we choose to eat based on how we feel But, without an underlying medical condition, it seems to me your body would process all sugar the same. That's where I'm coming from.
Sugars are different on the elemental level. There are differences in how the body processes HFCS, sucrose, fructose, glucose, dextrose, lactose, etc....
Straight fructose emptys more quickly from the stomach than glucose. Fructose (like in pop) can be processed into fat by the liver without being converted to glucose first, like other carbs. Fructose, unlike other carbs, does not down-regulate DNL. The fat that the liver makes with fructose is more likely to become visceral and liver fat.
The sugar in fruit is processed differently than the sugar in pop, which is processed differently than the sugar in a cake, due to dosage and macros/fiber. This can be further changed by the context the sugar was eaten in. All-night cola binge while writing a final exam? Dextrose (glucose+water) sweetened protein recovery drink? Apple slices with some peanut butter as an afternoon snack? All different dosages, sugar types, and contexts, and different impacts to how long digestion takes place and where the calories end up (fat, glycogen storage, immediate metabolic use). Add in metabolic differences (ie sugar sensitive/diabetic/metabolic disease), and there can be a huge difference between the impact of sugar from one source over another.
Fructose and glucose are metabolized differently by the body, however the levels of sugar being consumed in a calorie deficit makes this irrelevant.
With sugar the only time this becomes an issue is when it is consumed in extraordinarily high doses and a lot of the negative studies done on sugar are using exaggerated volumes to prove their points.
The American Heart Association recommends a daily intake of added sugar of no more than 5 teaspoons for women and 9 teaspoons for men.
http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/NutritionCenter/HealthyEating/By-Any-Other-Name-Its-Still-Sweetener_UCM_437368_Article.jsp
They focus on sugar in general, saying they don't differentiate, and they say concerns about high fructose corn syrup are misplaced, which basically kills the sugar is evil argument.
And, again--they are talking about moderation. That's a good thing.
Please stop saying sugar is evil. It doesn't help anything.
The website states to worry about more than HFCS - but it does single out added sugar - the limit is for added sugar, not for the naturally occurring sugar in foods like dairy, fruit or vegetables. HFCS in pop is one of the most significant contributers to added sugar intake in the North American diet.
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1819573#Conclusions
This is one of the studies that the recommendation to limit added sugars is based on. Average adult American takes in 14.9% of calories from added sugar. Significantly higher cardiac deaths found among population consuming more than 25% calories from added sugar than 10% calories from added sugar. About 10% of total population consumed more than 25% of calories from added sugar. Seems like that study where 25% of daily calories was administered as fructose or glucose wasn't as exaggerated as you think. Full text does not appear to be available for free online.
The 5 teaspoons added sugar means about 25 g/sugar (100 calories)/day for a woman. If this is what you mean by moderation, then your moderation is my limited.
Edited to clarify study was regarding added sugars.
Ummm..... I didn't say sugar is evil and you know it. You are intentionally trying to one up.
I said the article kills that argument.
Moderation is key.
It just gets annoying reading sugar advocates writing "sugar is evil" again and again (see post I replied to). Sugar advocates are the only ones who use that phrase, and it is never their message, so what's the point?
Moderation is thrown around so much that the word is essentially meaningless. So to you, moderation is consuming things at 1/3 the level of the general populace? Or limiting consumption to the level recommended by health authorities? Or does it mean including something in a diet in a proportion clear to you, but not in any way communicated in your post?
And yes, the article kills your argument, that "sugar is sugar". Clearly the type/source of sugar acts differently in the body. That is why added sugars increase the rate cardiovascular deaths, and natural sugars decrease it - hence the limit.0 -
prettykitty1515 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »girlviernes wrote: »Kyta, you need to provide direct links, not just a study with the links that lead to your opinion.
No, she's saying g she thought she had a sugar addiction but figured out the true issue is moderation.
Our body does not know the difference between sugar, and no sugar is good or bad, therefore if you're limiting sugar it makes sense to moderate wherever you see fit.
Your last two studies are pretty weak because of the manner the studies were conducted.
Well fruit is different due to the fiber content.
Basically, because of my IR, I focus on keeping blood sugar stable. Fruit generally does not have a problematic glycemic load (banana might, not sure) due to fiber. So various sources of sugar/starch can be balanced in different ways, simple portion control, combining with protein, fiber, fat, and perhaps also certain spices like cinnamon.
Yes, I understand the fiber content and the special issues when people have insulin resistance and diabetes, for example, and balance of macros and what we choose to eat based on how we feel But, without an underlying medical condition, it seems to me your body would process all sugar the same. That's where I'm coming from.
Sugars are different on the elemental level. There are differences in how the body processes HFCS, sucrose, fructose, glucose, dextrose, lactose, etc....
Straight fructose emptys more quickly from the stomach than glucose. Fructose (like in pop) can be processed into fat by the liver without being converted to glucose first, like other carbs. Fructose, unlike other carbs, does not down-regulate DNL. The fat that the liver makes with fructose is more likely to become visceral and liver fat.
The sugar in fruit is processed differently than the sugar in pop, which is processed differently than the sugar in a cake, due to dosage and macros/fiber. This can be further changed by the context the sugar was eaten in. All-night cola binge while writing a final exam? Dextrose (glucose+water) sweetened protein recovery drink? Apple slices with some peanut butter as an afternoon snack? All different dosages, sugar types, and contexts, and different impacts to how long digestion takes place and where the calories end up (fat, glycogen storage, immediate metabolic use). Add in metabolic differences (ie sugar sensitive/diabetic/metabolic disease), and there can be a huge difference between the impact of sugar from one source over another.
Fructose and glucose are metabolized differently by the body, however the levels of sugar being consumed in a calorie deficit makes this irrelevant.
With sugar the only time this becomes an issue is when it is consumed in extraordinarily high doses and a lot of the negative studies done on sugar are using exaggerated volumes to prove their points.
The American Heart Association recommends a daily intake of added sugar of no more than 5 teaspoons for women and 9 teaspoons for men.
http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/NutritionCenter/HealthyEating/By-Any-Other-Name-Its-Still-Sweetener_UCM_437368_Article.jsp
They focus on sugar in general, saying they don't differentiate, and they say concerns about high fructose corn syrup are misplaced, which basically kills the sugar is evil argument.
And, again--they are talking about moderation. That's a good thing.
Please stop saying sugar is evil. It doesn't help anything.
The website states to worry about more than HFCS - but it does single out added sugar - the limit is for added sugar, not for the naturally occurring sugar in foods like dairy, fruit or vegetables. HFCS in pop is one of the most significant contributers to added sugar intake in the North American diet.
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1819573#Conclusions
This is one of the studies that the recommendation to limit added sugars is based on. Average adult American takes in 14.9% of calories from added sugar. Significantly higher cardiac deaths found among population consuming more than 25% calories from added sugar than 10% calories from added sugar. About 10% of total population consumed more than 25% of calories from added sugar. Seems like that study where 25% of daily calories was administered as fructose or glucose wasn't as exaggerated as you think. Full text does not appear to be available for free online.
The 5 teaspoons added sugar means about 25 g/sugar (100 calories)/day for a woman. If this is what you mean by moderation, then your moderation is my limited.
Edited to clarify study was regarding added sugars.
Ummm..... I didn't say sugar is evil and you know it. You are intentionally trying to one up.
I said the article kills that argument.
Moderation is key.
It just gets annoying reading sugar advocates writing "sugar is evil" again and again (see post I replied to). Sugar advocates are the only ones who use that phrase, and it is never their message, so what's the point?
Moderation is thrown around so much that the word is essentially meaningless. So to you, moderation is consuming things at 1/3 the level of the general populace? Or limiting consumption to the level recommended by health authorities? Or does it mean including something in a diet in a proportion clear to you, but not in any way communicated in your post?
And yes, the article kills your argument, that "sugar is sugar". Clearly the type/source of sugar acts differently in the body. That is why added sugars increase the rate cardiovascular deaths, and natural sugars decrease it - hence the limit.
I'm not a sugar advocate. Read the article. It's about moderating sugar.
0 -
Moderation is key! Great job I agree that sugar seems like an addiction at times. I just learn not to go overboard and keep logging everything I eat! It's a great feeling at the end of the day when all of my macros are on point! 0
-
herrspoons wrote: »prettykitty1515 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »girlviernes wrote: »Kyta, you need to provide direct links, not just a study with the links that lead to your opinion.
No, she's saying g she thought she had a sugar addiction but figured out the true issue is moderation.
Our body does not know the difference between sugar, and no sugar is good or bad, therefore if you're limiting sugar it makes sense to moderate wherever you see fit.
Your last two studies are pretty weak because of the manner the studies were conducted.
Well fruit is different due to the fiber content.
Basically, because of my IR, I focus on keeping blood sugar stable. Fruit generally does not have a problematic glycemic load (banana might, not sure) due to fiber. So various sources of sugar/starch can be balanced in different ways, simple portion control, combining with protein, fiber, fat, and perhaps also certain spices like cinnamon.
Yes, I understand the fiber content and the special issues when people have insulin resistance and diabetes, for example, and balance of macros and what we choose to eat based on how we feel But, without an underlying medical condition, it seems to me your body would process all sugar the same. That's where I'm coming from.
Sugars are different on the elemental level. There are differences in how the body processes HFCS, sucrose, fructose, glucose, dextrose, lactose, etc....
Straight fructose emptys more quickly from the stomach than glucose. Fructose (like in pop) can be processed into fat by the liver without being converted to glucose first, like other carbs. Fructose, unlike other carbs, does not down-regulate DNL. The fat that the liver makes with fructose is more likely to become visceral and liver fat.
The sugar in fruit is processed differently than the sugar in pop, which is processed differently than the sugar in a cake, due to dosage and macros/fiber. This can be further changed by the context the sugar was eaten in. All-night cola binge while writing a final exam? Dextrose (glucose+water) sweetened protein recovery drink? Apple slices with some peanut butter as an afternoon snack? All different dosages, sugar types, and contexts, and different impacts to how long digestion takes place and where the calories end up (fat, glycogen storage, immediate metabolic use). Add in metabolic differences (ie sugar sensitive/diabetic/metabolic disease), and there can be a huge difference between the impact of sugar from one source over another.
Fructose and glucose are metabolized differently by the body, however the levels of sugar being consumed in a calorie deficit makes this irrelevant.
With sugar the only time this becomes an issue is when it is consumed in extraordinarily high doses and a lot of the negative studies done on sugar are using exaggerated volumes to prove their points.
The American Heart Association recommends a daily intake of added sugar of no more than 5 teaspoons for women and 9 teaspoons for men.
http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/NutritionCenter/HealthyEating/By-Any-Other-Name-Its-Still-Sweetener_UCM_437368_Article.jsp
They focus on sugar in general, saying they don't differentiate, and they say concerns about high fructose corn syrup are misplaced, which basically kills the sugar is evil argument.
And, again--they are talking about moderation. That's a good thing.
Please stop saying sugar is evil. It doesn't help anything.
The website states to worry about more than HFCS - but it does single out added sugar - the limit is for added sugar, not for the naturally occurring sugar in foods like dairy, fruit or vegetables. HFCS in pop is one of the most significant contributers to added sugar intake in the North American diet.
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1819573#Conclusions
This is one of the studies that the recommendation to limit added sugars is based on. Average adult American takes in 14.9% of calories from added sugar. Significantly higher cardiac deaths found among population consuming more than 25% calories from added sugar than 10% calories from added sugar. About 10% of total population consumed more than 25% of calories from added sugar. Seems like that study where 25% of daily calories was administered as fructose or glucose wasn't as exaggerated as you think. Full text does not appear to be available for free online.
The 5 teaspoons added sugar means about 25 g/sugar (100 calories)/day for a woman. If this is what you mean by moderation, then your moderation is my limited.
Edited to clarify study was regarding added sugars.
Ummm..... I didn't say sugar is evil and you know it. You are intentionally trying to one up.
I said the article kills that argument.
Moderation is key.
It just gets annoying reading sugar advocates writing "sugar is evil" again and again (see post I replied to). Sugar advocates are the only ones who use that phrase, and it is never their message, so what's the point?
Moderation is thrown around so much that the word is essentially meaningless. So to you, moderation is consuming things at 1/3 the level of the general populace? Or limiting consumption to the level recommended by health authorities? Or does it mean including something in a diet in a proportion clear to you, but not in any way communicated in your post?
And yes, the article kills your argument, that "sugar is sugar". Clearly the type/source of sugar acts differently in the body. That is why added sugars increase the rate cardiovascular deaths, and natural sugars decrease it - hence the limit.
Moderation to me is a donut once every couple of days, maybe some cookies at the weekend, that sort of thing.
I'd be pretty surprised if that didn't match most people's definition.
Face it, your articles have been debunked and now you're floundering by playing a game of semantics.
Boring.
I agree with this assessment. I might have a serving of lactose free ice cream after dinner.0 -
herrspoons wrote: »prettykitty1515 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »girlviernes wrote: »Kyta, you need to provide direct links, not just a study with the links that lead to your opinion.
No, she's saying g she thought she had a sugar addiction but figured out the true issue is moderation.
Our body does not know the difference between sugar, and no sugar is good or bad, therefore if you're limiting sugar it makes sense to moderate wherever you see fit.
Your last two studies are pretty weak because of the manner the studies were conducted.
Well fruit is different due to the fiber content.
Basically, because of my IR, I focus on keeping blood sugar stable. Fruit generally does not have a problematic glycemic load (banana might, not sure) due to fiber. So various sources of sugar/starch can be balanced in different ways, simple portion control, combining with protein, fiber, fat, and perhaps also certain spices like cinnamon.
Yes, I understand the fiber content and the special issues when people have insulin resistance and diabetes, for example, and balance of macros and what we choose to eat based on how we feel But, without an underlying medical condition, it seems to me your body would process all sugar the same. That's where I'm coming from.
Sugars are different on the elemental level. There are differences in how the body processes HFCS, sucrose, fructose, glucose, dextrose, lactose, etc....
Straight fructose emptys more quickly from the stomach than glucose. Fructose (like in pop) can be processed into fat by the liver without being converted to glucose first, like other carbs. Fructose, unlike other carbs, does not down-regulate DNL. The fat that the liver makes with fructose is more likely to become visceral and liver fat.
The sugar in fruit is processed differently than the sugar in pop, which is processed differently than the sugar in a cake, due to dosage and macros/fiber. This can be further changed by the context the sugar was eaten in. All-night cola binge while writing a final exam? Dextrose (glucose+water) sweetened protein recovery drink? Apple slices with some peanut butter as an afternoon snack? All different dosages, sugar types, and contexts, and different impacts to how long digestion takes place and where the calories end up (fat, glycogen storage, immediate metabolic use). Add in metabolic differences (ie sugar sensitive/diabetic/metabolic disease), and there can be a huge difference between the impact of sugar from one source over another.
Fructose and glucose are metabolized differently by the body, however the levels of sugar being consumed in a calorie deficit makes this irrelevant.
With sugar the only time this becomes an issue is when it is consumed in extraordinarily high doses and a lot of the negative studies done on sugar are using exaggerated volumes to prove their points.
The American Heart Association recommends a daily intake of added sugar of no more than 5 teaspoons for women and 9 teaspoons for men.
http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/NutritionCenter/HealthyEating/By-Any-Other-Name-Its-Still-Sweetener_UCM_437368_Article.jsp
They focus on sugar in general, saying they don't differentiate, and they say concerns about high fructose corn syrup are misplaced, which basically kills the sugar is evil argument.
And, again--they are talking about moderation. That's a good thing.
Please stop saying sugar is evil. It doesn't help anything.
The website states to worry about more than HFCS - but it does single out added sugar - the limit is for added sugar, not for the naturally occurring sugar in foods like dairy, fruit or vegetables. HFCS in pop is one of the most significant contributers to added sugar intake in the North American diet.
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1819573#Conclusions
This is one of the studies that the recommendation to limit added sugars is based on. Average adult American takes in 14.9% of calories from added sugar. Significantly higher cardiac deaths found among population consuming more than 25% calories from added sugar than 10% calories from added sugar. About 10% of total population consumed more than 25% of calories from added sugar. Seems like that study where 25% of daily calories was administered as fructose or glucose wasn't as exaggerated as you think. Full text does not appear to be available for free online.
The 5 teaspoons added sugar means about 25 g/sugar (100 calories)/day for a woman. If this is what you mean by moderation, then your moderation is my limited.
Edited to clarify study was regarding added sugars.
Ummm..... I didn't say sugar is evil and you know it. You are intentionally trying to one up.
I said the article kills that argument.
Moderation is key.
It just gets annoying reading sugar advocates writing "sugar is evil" again and again (see post I replied to). Sugar advocates are the only ones who use that phrase, and it is never their message, so what's the point?
Moderation is thrown around so much that the word is essentially meaningless. So to you, moderation is consuming things at 1/3 the level of the general populace? Or limiting consumption to the level recommended by health authorities? Or does it mean including something in a diet in a proportion clear to you, but not in any way communicated in your post?
And yes, the article kills your argument, that "sugar is sugar". Clearly the type/source of sugar acts differently in the body. That is why added sugars increase the rate cardiovascular deaths, and natural sugars decrease it - hence the limit.
Moderation to me is a donut once every couple of days, maybe some cookies at the weekend, that sort of thing.
I'd be pretty surprised if that didn't match most people's definition.
Face it, your articles have been debunked and now you're floundering by playing a game of semantics.
Boring.
That sounds about right, except, to be honest, in practice I don't do this because I need to buy gluten free stuff and don't often get around to shopping for it. With having a daily Quest bar for a snack, I just don't want sweet treats that much. I did have some GF Peppermint Jo-Jo's when they were out before Christmas. They were sublime. I ate them every few days, 2 or 3 at a time. My husband helped eat them before they went soft.
0 -
Diabetes runs heavily in my family. Even among members who are not noticeably overweight. So if I ever can eat sugar in moderation and not want to scarf the entire container, I'm going with the new WHO recommendation.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/06/health/who-sugar-guidelines/
WHO is encouraging people to consume less than 5% of their total daily calories from sugars.0 -
herrspoons wrote: »prettykitty1515 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »girlviernes wrote: »Kyta, you need to provide direct links, not just a study with the links that lead to your opinion.
No, she's saying g she thought she had a sugar addiction but figured out the true issue is moderation.
Our body does not know the difference between sugar, and no sugar is good or bad, therefore if you're limiting sugar it makes sense to moderate wherever you see fit.
Your last two studies are pretty weak because of the manner the studies were conducted.
Well fruit is different due to the fiber content.
Basically, because of my IR, I focus on keeping blood sugar stable. Fruit generally does not have a problematic glycemic load (banana might, not sure) due to fiber. So various sources of sugar/starch can be balanced in different ways, simple portion control, combining with protein, fiber, fat, and perhaps also certain spices like cinnamon.
Yes, I understand the fiber content and the special issues when people have insulin resistance and diabetes, for example, and balance of macros and what we choose to eat based on how we feel But, without an underlying medical condition, it seems to me your body would process all sugar the same. That's where I'm coming from.
Sugars are different on the elemental level. There are differences in how the body processes HFCS, sucrose, fructose, glucose, dextrose, lactose, etc....
Straight fructose emptys more quickly from the stomach than glucose. Fructose (like in pop) can be processed into fat by the liver without being converted to glucose first, like other carbs. Fructose, unlike other carbs, does not down-regulate DNL. The fat that the liver makes with fructose is more likely to become visceral and liver fat.
The sugar in fruit is processed differently than the sugar in pop, which is processed differently than the sugar in a cake, due to dosage and macros/fiber. This can be further changed by the context the sugar was eaten in. All-night cola binge while writing a final exam? Dextrose (glucose+water) sweetened protein recovery drink? Apple slices with some peanut butter as an afternoon snack? All different dosages, sugar types, and contexts, and different impacts to how long digestion takes place and where the calories end up (fat, glycogen storage, immediate metabolic use). Add in metabolic differences (ie sugar sensitive/diabetic/metabolic disease), and there can be a huge difference between the impact of sugar from one source over another.
Fructose and glucose are metabolized differently by the body, however the levels of sugar being consumed in a calorie deficit makes this irrelevant.
With sugar the only time this becomes an issue is when it is consumed in extraordinarily high doses and a lot of the negative studies done on sugar are using exaggerated volumes to prove their points.
The American Heart Association recommends a daily intake of added sugar of no more than 5 teaspoons for women and 9 teaspoons for men.
http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/NutritionCenter/HealthyEating/By-Any-Other-Name-Its-Still-Sweetener_UCM_437368_Article.jsp
They focus on sugar in general, saying they don't differentiate, and they say concerns about high fructose corn syrup are misplaced, which basically kills the sugar is evil argument.
And, again--they are talking about moderation. That's a good thing.
Please stop saying sugar is evil. It doesn't help anything.
The website states to worry about more than HFCS - but it does single out added sugar - the limit is for added sugar, not for the naturally occurring sugar in foods like dairy, fruit or vegetables. HFCS in pop is one of the most significant contributers to added sugar intake in the North American diet.
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1819573#Conclusions
This is one of the studies that the recommendation to limit added sugars is based on. Average adult American takes in 14.9% of calories from added sugar. Significantly higher cardiac deaths found among population consuming more than 25% calories from added sugar than 10% calories from added sugar. About 10% of total population consumed more than 25% of calories from added sugar. Seems like that study where 25% of daily calories was administered as fructose or glucose wasn't as exaggerated as you think. Full text does not appear to be available for free online.
The 5 teaspoons added sugar means about 25 g/sugar (100 calories)/day for a woman. If this is what you mean by moderation, then your moderation is my limited.
Edited to clarify study was regarding added sugars.
Ummm..... I didn't say sugar is evil and you know it. You are intentionally trying to one up.
I said the article kills that argument.
Moderation is key.
It just gets annoying reading sugar advocates writing "sugar is evil" again and again (see post I replied to). Sugar advocates are the only ones who use that phrase, and it is never their message, so what's the point?
Moderation is thrown around so much that the word is essentially meaningless. So to you, moderation is consuming things at 1/3 the level of the general populace? Or limiting consumption to the level recommended by health authorities? Or does it mean including something in a diet in a proportion clear to you, but not in any way communicated in your post?
And yes, the article kills your argument, that "sugar is sugar". Clearly the type/source of sugar acts differently in the body. That is why added sugars increase the rate cardiovascular deaths, and natural sugars decrease it - hence the limit.
Moderation to me is a donut once every couple of days, maybe some cookies at the weekend, that sort of thing.
I'd be pretty surprised if that didn't match most people's definition.
Face it, your articles have been debunked and now you're floundering by playing a game of semantics.
Boring.
Saying a study is "weak" or that you don't like the author is not debunking it. I'm the one who has provided scientific evidence for my point of view.
If your added sugar intake is limited to a donut or a couple of cookies every couple of days, then yes, your definition of moderation is in line with recommendations. Based on what I've read in some of the sugar threads, not everyone's definition of moderation is.0 -
Congratulations OP! What I took away from your journey is that everyone needs to find their way through the myriad of opinions to what makes their body tick and feel good. What makes *me* tick/work/run/play is to limit sugar/processed food intake - and everyone around me is happiest when I limit - the crash is UGLY. Balance of all nutrients makes a body happy and healthy - wish the wealthy and wise just came along with it!0
-
OldWomanRuns wrote: »and everyone around me is happiest when I limit - the crash is UGLY.
Right there with you! I think that's why my family has gotten good about not pushing treat foods on me as much anymore!
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
- 424 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