Anybody a sugar addict? Want to give it up together?

lemurcat12

Jolinia wrote: »

I don't think it's that wrong. Controversial, yes, but wrong? There are people who end up dying in bed after losing their jobs, mobility, independence, health, and a natural lifespan because they won't stop eating. Something to that, whatever word you want to call it.

Compulsive overeaters, sure--although their issue is rarely "sugar," but eating itself.

But most people who become overweight under the circumstances today that make it so easy to do aren't remotely like addicts. They don't put "sugar" above their jobs, loved ones, life itself. The fact that being fat is bad for you isn't an argument to the contrary, as people do lots of dangerous things assuming they will be one of the ones who get away with it; it just means that humans have a tough time with short term vs. long term prioritizing and actually can be helped by showing people that losing weight doesn't have to be as hard (involving giving up all the foods they think they love) as they often think.

Jolinia

lemurcat12 wrote: »

Jolinia wrote: »

I don't think it's that wrong. Controversial, yes, but wrong? There are people who end up dying in bed after losing their jobs, mobility, independence, health, and a natural lifespan because they won't stop eating. Something to that, whatever word you want to call it.

Compulsive overeaters, sure--although their issue is rarely "sugar," but eating itself.

But most people who become overweight under the circumstances today that make it so easy to do aren't remotely like addicts. They don't put "sugar" above their jobs, loved ones, life itself. The fact that being fat is bad for you isn't an argument to the contrary, as people do lots of dangerous things assuming they will be one of the ones who get away with it; it just means that humans have a tough time with short term vs. long term prioritizing and actually can be helped by showing people that losing weight doesn't have to be as hard (involving giving up all the foods they think they love) as they often think.

This is true, most people don't do this. Some people can use whatever drug they like and never get addicted, too. But this is a much smaller number than the number of people who can hit up Krispy Kreme every morning and then just quit when they feel like making a more nutrient dense, lower calorie breakfast choice.

I don't say sugar or any other food has power over me except the power to annoy me with cravings. And I hate being annoyed. I like to keep my life as pleasant as possible!

Edit: Actually, not entirely true. I also think I feel better mentally and physically when I don't eat certain foods. So that is definite power, but I'm sure almost everyone knows of at least one food that doesn't agree with them.

lemurcat12

I just don't know why you are interpreting the discussion to mean that you should eat sugar (maybe I'm wrong, but I'm perceiving this in your posts). Like I said, I've given added sugar up from time to time. IMO, if you experience cravings when eating something and don't when not, that would be a reason not to bother, IMO, and to just see that as a trade off when considering whether to make an exception.

I just think that it's a more sensible strategy, in general, to look at your overall diet (not you, you seem to have done this quite thoroughly) and understand where your extra calories are coming from and why rather than to blame "sugar addiction" for being overweight.

For example, I ate donuts (which I don't even like that much, they were just there) and other sweets mid-day not because I was so into them or "addicted," but because I failed to eat a breakfast that was satisfying to me and gave myself a sugar rush and crash (from white flour, and the absence of protein and fat, not sugar). I ate sweets at lunch or mid afternoon because I was using them as a mood enhancer/treat to myself to make up for other crappy things, which speaks to distorted use, but is not the same thing as addiction. I ordered Indian food for dinner for similar reasons, plus poor planning. None of this is because sugar had a hold on me, and simply getting upset with myself for being tempted by sugar wouldn't have been a helpful way of approaching the issue. Was the answer in part cutting down the sugary items (which also had high calories) in my diet? Sure, but hardly the main answer, or at least approaching it that way, for me, would have been the wrong way around.

I'm reacting here to people saying "how do I cut sugar"? The answer seems pretty obvious, right? You eat less. If people think it's too hard to do, there's something else going on, but rather than find out the details half of the forum seems to get on the "you must cut it all out NOW" bandwagon (plenty claiming that all fruit or all carbs must go), whereas the other half say "why cut it." I think the proper question is "why do you want to cut it and what seems difficult about it?" (But apparently asking that makes you MEAN.)

Jolinia

lemurcat12 wrote: »

That's fine. I don't know why you are interpreting the discussion to mean that you should eat sugar or not. If you experience cravings when eating something and don't when not, that would be a reason not to bother, IMO, and to just see that as a trade off when considering whether to make an exception.

I figure it that way, too. I admit, I'm a weirdo, an outlier with extreme cravings most people never experience, but I have to work around it to have the best, most fun life possible. And I'm all about the fun!

dunnodunno

Nope!