Anybody a sugar addict? Want to give it up together?
Options
Replies
-
But I have been known *cough*last week*cough* to eat brown sugar straight out of the bag, too.
I bet this is extremely rare, though, and not what most people talking about "sugar addiction" mean. I love plenty of sweet foods (and plenty of non-sweet foods), but the idea of eating straight sugar--even brown sugar, which is the tastiest kind, is revolting to me. I recall a spoonful (of white) being a hiccup cure and it wasn't especially enjoyable. But toast some sugar and cinnamon on some buttered bread and it becomes delicious to the child me (and probably me now, though I haven't done it for ages).
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »But I have been known *cough*last week*cough* to eat brown sugar straight out of the bag, too.
I bet this is extremely rare, though, and not what most people talking about "sugar addiction" mean. I love plenty of sweet foods (and plenty of non-sweet foods), but the idea of eating straight sugar--even brown sugar, which is the tastiest kind, is revolting to me. I recall a spoonful (of white) being a hiccup cure and it wasn't especially enjoyable. But toast some sugar and cinnamon on some buttered bread and it becomes delicious to the child me (and probably me now, though I haven't done it for ages).
I hope it's extremely rare! I did learn something, though. If I absolutely am going to give in, there are worse things than brown sugar. It has a few nutrients and you have to eat quite a few heaping tablespoons to really wreck your day. I also found it somewhat self-limiting even though alcohol munchies may or may not have been involved that night. I didn't eat the whole bag anyway.
Anything involving bread and the whole loaf would have been demolished.0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »Op and everyone else expressing a wish to cut/remove sugar....
Why?
Why reduce sugar???
Easy - quick and simple route to a calorie deficit!!
Question to you!!
OP has made (as an adult) a decisions (although poorly worded, in the original post, i would suggest) to reduce her sugar intake - what does it matter.
I'm sure most people aren't ignorant enough to believe the OP means to cut sugar to zero and have the ability to not read things so literally.
It doesn't matter to me in the slightest.
I was merely curious as to why the OP and others chose to cut/remove sugar, as it's something that has never given me any issues and something I am able to fit in to my balanced dietary intake.
I assumed the purpose of a discussion forum was to discuss things.
Most people who are new to this site are looking to get their eating under control and into a calorie deficit.
The simplest (not always the easiest) is to cut back on sugar (in particular things like cakes, sweets etc). As sugar is probably the least healthy of the foods we eat, and some of the things like sweets/cakes are possibly high in calories and low in micro nutrients, why not target those.
Lord knows the MFP general forums are never going to be a supportive place, but the idiocy and childishness of some of the posters is general unhelpful.
So sorry to hear you won't be eating any more fruits, vegetables, breads, etc. My condolences.
These forum are for the purpose of discussion, but this topic has been hijacked to death, it might be a novel approach to let one run it's proper course, with people not jumping in getting all butthurt that we don't all love sugar.
For clarification I'm not on the side of anti-sugar, but I'm not under the illusion it's that great either. It's pretty much a neutral food that serves its purpose in a healthy balanced diet and when that diet consists of too many calories, why shouldn't it be the first thing to be cut back on to get back into a deficit?
How is the simplest way to cut back on sugars, wouldn't cutting the most caloric macro ie fat, be the easiest? Except sugars are all saccharides, not all would fit the description as least healthy.
Actually it's not people getting butthurt, it's pointing out the general ignorance of posters who want to make excuses and blame "sugar" for their inability to lose weight. If you're going to blame something for your inability to lose weight, you should probably know what that thing actually is
The OP has decided cutting back on sugar is the simplest way for HER to cut calories. Why is there such a debate on it? She isn't telling everyone else to cut back, she was asking for others who were interested in cutting back as well. Yet so often, so many here feel the need to insist someone eat sugar. She DIDN'T say all sugar, she specifically mentioned cakes and sweets. I didn't hear the OP say sugar was her reason for not losing weight, I heard her say she has a sweet tooth she wants to get under control. And I'll be honest, the term "butthurt" (a term I actually detest) comes to my mind from the "pro sugar" camp every single time this topic comes up.
Actually where does she mention cutting back on sugar is the simplest way for her to cut back on calories. Please be specific
She said "obvious sugar", which would include obvious sources like fruit, which could have been included in the etc.
Where did I say the OP say sugar was her reason for not losing weight, if you reread what I wrote it makes no mention of the OP.
Where does she say she has a sweet tooth she wants to get under control? Again be specific
Sigh. My point is, why are you debating something that has nothing to do with the OP?
For me, because the thread pretty obviously is not about the OP any more. She asked for people to join in, some did, some didn't, people who want to will contact her. But others expressed views about sugar or cutting sugar more generally or about the use of the term addiction and now we are discussing that broader topic. Presumably if people don't want a thread to become a broader discussion about food and nutrition they'd post it in the introductions section or the motivation section or go to one of the anti-sugar groups.
Why do people act as if having a more general (and perfectly pleasant) discussion about the broader topic is some kind of horrible offense.OP, if you're still reading this - and I think you're brave if so - I seriously recommend finding a low carb or sugar group.
Yes, it's brave to read a thread with opinions different from your own. Up there with rushing into a burning building. Is such ridiculous hyperbole really necessary?
One of the positives of the internet is it allows for discussion with people of a variety of views, but some people seem to think that not agreeing with them is somehow offensive (not that the OP has said that, to be fair). IMO, if I don't want alternative views or to open myself to challenge, I don't post something on the internet. This forum and specifically this section in the forum is for an interesting discussion of food and nutrition, not a place where we need to affirm someone's choice to do a cleanse or some nonsense.
Now, as it happens, I think the OP's plan is quite possibly a good one for her (and have indicated as much, with caveats), but this overreaction to people having other ideas and expressing them on the internet is bizarre.0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »Op and everyone else expressing a wish to cut/remove sugar....
Why?
Why reduce sugar???
Easy - quick and simple route to a calorie deficit!!
Question to you!!
OP has made (as an adult) a decisions (although poorly worded, in the original post, i would suggest) to reduce her sugar intake - what does it matter.
I'm sure most people aren't ignorant enough to believe the OP means to cut sugar to zero and have the ability to not read things so literally.
It doesn't matter to me in the slightest.
I was merely curious as to why the OP and others chose to cut/remove sugar, as it's something that has never given me any issues and something I am able to fit in to my balanced dietary intake.
I assumed the purpose of a discussion forum was to discuss things.
Most people who are new to this site are looking to get their eating under control and into a calorie deficit.
The simplest (not always the easiest) is to cut back on sugar (in particular things like cakes, sweets etc). As sugar is probably the least healthy of the foods we eat, and some of the things like sweets/cakes are possibly high in calories and low in micro nutrients, why not target those.
Lord knows the MFP general forums are never going to be a supportive place, but the idiocy and childishness of some of the posters is general unhelpful.
So sorry to hear you won't be eating any more fruits, vegetables, breads, etc. My condolences.
These forum are for the purpose of discussion, but this topic has been hijacked to death, it might be a novel approach to let one run it's proper course, with people not jumping in getting all butthurt that we don't all love sugar.
For clarification I'm not on the side of anti-sugar, but I'm not under the illusion it's that great either. It's pretty much a neutral food that serves its purpose in a healthy balanced diet and when that diet consists of too many calories, why shouldn't it be the first thing to be cut back on to get back into a deficit?
How is the simplest way to cut back on sugars, wouldn't cutting the most caloric macro ie fat, be the easiest? Except sugars are all saccharides, not all would fit the description as least healthy.
Actually it's not people getting butthurt, it's pointing out the general ignorance of posters who want to make excuses and blame "sugar" for their inability to lose weight. If you're going to blame something for your inability to lose weight, you should probably know what that thing actually is
The OP has decided cutting back on sugar is the simplest way for HER to cut calories. Why is there such a debate on it? She isn't telling everyone else to cut back, she was asking for others who were interested in cutting back as well. Yet so often, so many here feel the need to insist someone eat sugar. She DIDN'T say all sugar, she specifically mentioned cakes and sweets. I didn't hear the OP say sugar was her reason for not losing weight, I heard her say she has a sweet tooth she wants to get under control. And I'll be honest, the term "butthurt" (a term I actually detest) comes to my mind from the "pro sugar" camp every single time this topic comes up.
If you post in a public forum, you're going to get a lot of different answers. And as the guidelines state, topics in which you are only looking for responses from a limited pool of users are better in grouos, not the main forums.
And for ease of typing I'm with lemurcat...
I could say the same about the "pro" sugar group. The ones getting offended by the term "addicted" when they know full well the meaning behind it.
But we DON'T know the meaning. Or at least based on past discussions and some of the things said here I think it's more likely than not that the OP means to suggest that one's liking for sugar is akin to being addicted to a drug, and that's a model I think is harmful for what most are talking about (perhaps not for some with binge eating disorders (BED), although it does seem to be bad for others with BED).
And for the record, I think it's not a helpful usage, but am not offended, and couldn't care less if someone claims to be addicted in a jokey, non-serious way. I do think it's wrong and rather insensitive to suggest that liking cookies is pretty much the same as being addicted to heroin, though (or that it's harder to deal with because you can't stop eating, as some seem to believe).0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »Op and everyone else expressing a wish to cut/remove sugar....
Why?
Why reduce sugar???
Easy - quick and simple route to a calorie deficit!!
Question to you!!
OP has made (as an adult) a decisions (although poorly worded, in the original post, i would suggest) to reduce her sugar intake - what does it matter.
I'm sure most people aren't ignorant enough to believe the OP means to cut sugar to zero and have the ability to not read things so literally.
It doesn't matter to me in the slightest.
I was merely curious as to why the OP and others chose to cut/remove sugar, as it's something that has never given me any issues and something I am able to fit in to my balanced dietary intake.
I assumed the purpose of a discussion forum was to discuss things.
Most people who are new to this site are looking to get their eating under control and into a calorie deficit.
The simplest (not always the easiest) is to cut back on sugar (in particular things like cakes, sweets etc). As sugar is probably the least healthy of the foods we eat, and some of the things like sweets/cakes are possibly high in calories and low in micro nutrients, why not target those.
Lord knows the MFP general forums are never going to be a supportive place, but the idiocy and childishness of some of the posters is general unhelpful.
So sorry to hear you won't be eating any more fruits, vegetables, breads, etc. My condolences.
These forum are for the purpose of discussion, but this topic has been hijacked to death, it might be a novel approach to let one run it's proper course, with people not jumping in getting all butthurt that we don't all love sugar.
For clarification I'm not on the side of anti-sugar, but I'm not under the illusion it's that great either. It's pretty much a neutral food that serves its purpose in a healthy balanced diet and when that diet consists of too many calories, why shouldn't it be the first thing to be cut back on to get back into a deficit?
How is the simplest way to cut back on sugars, wouldn't cutting the most caloric macro ie fat, be the easiest? Except sugars are all saccharides, not all would fit the description as least healthy.
Actually it's not people getting butthurt, it's pointing out the general ignorance of posters who want to make excuses and blame "sugar" for their inability to lose weight. If you're going to blame something for your inability to lose weight, you should probably know what that thing actually is
The OP has decided cutting back on sugar is the simplest way for HER to cut calories. Why is there such a debate on it? She isn't telling everyone else to cut back, she was asking for others who were interested in cutting back as well. Yet so often, so many here feel the need to insist someone eat sugar. She DIDN'T say all sugar, she specifically mentioned cakes and sweets. I didn't hear the OP say sugar was her reason for not losing weight, I heard her say she has a sweet tooth she wants to get under control. And I'll be honest, the term "butthurt" (a term I actually detest) comes to my mind from the "pro sugar" camp every single time this topic comes up.
If you post in a public forum, you're going to get a lot of different answers. And as the guidelines state, topics in which you are only looking for responses from a limited pool of users are better in grouos, not the main forums.
And for ease of typing I'm with lemurcat...
I could say the same about the "pro" sugar group. The ones getting offended by the term "addicted" when they know full well the meaning behind it.
But we DON'T know the meaning. Or at least based on past discussions and some of the things said here I think it's more likely than not that the OP means to suggest that one's liking for sugar is akin to being addicted to a drug, and that's a model I think is harmful for what most are talking about (perhaps not for some with binge eating disorders (BED), although it does seem to be bad for others with BED).
And for the record, I think it's not a helpful usage, but am not offended, and couldn't care less if someone claims to be addicted in a jokey, non-serious way. I do think it's wrong and rather insensitive to suggest that liking cookies is pretty much the same as being addicted to heroin, though (or that it's harder to deal with because you can't stop eating, as some seem to believe).
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.0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »it would be nice if OP came back and clarified the "addicted" part of her title..
is she claiming..
1) lack of self control around sugar
or
2) addicted to sugar in the true sense, and the fore needs to go on a 12 step program because she binges on ALL forms of sugar, not just one maligned class of sugar, which in this case appears to be added sugar.
Why would the OP want to come back?
I would assume she means lack of self control - in fact I would think all rational thinking adults (and small children) would think that.
You are just assuming that is what she is thinking, like everyone else.
I think people say "addiction" and not self control instead, because it takes the blame off of them. When people own up to it or stop making excuses, they will have a better chance of getting to their goals.
I think it's a pretty reasonable assumption and a very common phrase used by millions of people daily to describe a habit or lack of will power towards food.
I sometimes will say when I am really hungry ' jeez I'm starving, I need some food'.
Now, I know I am not actually starving, but it's a common enough saying to not be taken in the literal sense.
This would be a better argument if it weren't common for people here to claim that addiction to sugar=addiction to heroin (or sometimes cocaine or alcohol), and if there weren't currently an argument in the thread over whether sugar addiction is a thing.
In any event, IF you are right it's easy enough to clarify with "I was just using the term hyperbolically, like when I say I'm starving." If it wasn't commonly used in ways that are supposed to be literal, no one would be jumping on it. (And I'll note again that I DON'T jump on it, but try to ask for clarification or raise my concern about the addiction model more gently. Doesn't seem to matter to those who are all "how DARE you not affirm her word usage!" in their responses.)0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »it would be nice if OP came back and clarified the "addicted" part of her title..
is she claiming..
1) lack of self control around sugar
or
2) addicted to sugar in the true sense, and the fore needs to go on a 12 step program because she binges on ALL forms of sugar, not just one maligned class of sugar, which in this case appears to be added sugar.
Why would the OP want to come back?
I would assume she means lack of self control - in fact I would think all rational thinking adults (and small children) would think that.
You are just assuming that is what she is thinking, like everyone else.
I think people say "addiction" and not self control instead, because it takes the blame off of them. When people own up to it or stop making excuses, they will have a better chance of getting to their goals.
Well okay, but I have self control when I simply don't buy it, too. But what is a good word for whatever change happens in my little not-a-rat brain if I were to right now start eating it and want more when if I don't have it at all, I don't crave it?
You're still giving it control over you by saying that you can't stop yourself if it's around. You firmly believe that it's bigger than you are and takes you over, when it's really a matter of your personal behavior and impulse control.
I'm a former sugar and carb "addict". I now eat both. Moderately. I had to learn that it was all about my choice, it was all my responsibility first. For too many years, I was blaming the foods for my own lack of self-control.
I can stop myself. I just don't want to deal with the cravings. I have better things to spend willpower on. Like focusing sufficiently that I don't land on my butt while rollerblading every time I go over a twig or crack in the driveway! I'm very distractible, it costs me willpower to focus and not look around at every car sound and dog bark. Sad but true.
How long have you done without sugar without caving before?
There comes a point that you can reintroduce in moderation it and be craving-free. Promise.
Around six months on a low carb diet. I'm back on low carb and getting more vigorous exercise this time. So far I feel great, mentally and physically. If I keep feeling great I see no reason to change.
You might need longer for your taste buds to reset. I was low-carb for about 5-7 years? Maybe more. I'm not saying you need that long, but here's a test for you: once an almond tastes genuinely sweet, you'll be there.
This is interesting. Almonds have always tasted sweet to me. I added some to the banana "pudding" I made last night (one of those banana and coconut milk concoctions with some tapioca) and actually thought "wow, slivered these taste really sweet" when deciding whether to add them. I'd thought about chocolate chips instead, but went with the almonds.
I've also always been quite sensitive to sweet tastes--finding plenty of veggies and, of course, fruit sweet, finding many things too sweet (I was quite picky about what sweet wines I could stomach when I drank and preferred the dry ones)--even when I ate far more sweets than I currently do. Wonder if this is related to me having an easier time switching to moderation than some, because I didn't have to recalibrate my tastes so much.0 -
<<<How long have you done without sugar without caving before?
There comes a point that you can reintroduce in moderation it and be craving-free. Promise>>>
This can be true. In June I gave up diet soda. I didn't plan it, I went a day without it and thought I wonder how long I can do this. I had cravings for a few weeks but now I don't crave it at all. Now I probably have one glass on the weekend and that is enough, that stuff is terribly sweet
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »it would be nice if OP came back and clarified the "addicted" part of her title..
is she claiming..
1) lack of self control around sugar
or
2) addicted to sugar in the true sense, and the fore needs to go on a 12 step program because she binges on ALL forms of sugar, not just one maligned class of sugar, which in this case appears to be added sugar.
Why would the OP want to come back?
I would assume she means lack of self control - in fact I would think all rational thinking adults (and small children) would think that.
You are just assuming that is what she is thinking, like everyone else.
I think people say "addiction" and not self control instead, because it takes the blame off of them. When people own up to it or stop making excuses, they will have a better chance of getting to their goals.
I think it's a pretty reasonable assumption and a very common phrase used by millions of people daily to describe a habit or lack of will power towards food.
I sometimes will say when I am really hungry ' jeez I'm starving, I need some food'.
Now, I know I am not actually starving, but it's a common enough saying to not be taken in the literal sense.
This would be a better argument if it weren't common for people here to claim that addiction to sugar=addiction to heroin (or sometimes cocaine or alcohol), and if there weren't currently an argument in the thread over whether sugar addiction is a thing.
In any event, IF you are right it's easy enough to clarify with "I was just using the term hyperbolically, like when I say I'm starving." If it wasn't commonly used in ways that are supposed to be literal, no one would be jumping on it. (And I'll note again that I DON'T jump on it, but try to ask for clarification or raise my concern about the addiction model more gently. Doesn't seem to matter to those who are all "how DARE you not affirm her word usage!" in their responses.)
Bingo. Because the thinking behind it is really problematic for someone who wants to lose weight AND have any hope of keeping it off. As long as you're shifting blame, the mindset isn't there for the long haul.
Granted that most weight loss efforts ultimately end in regain, but it's clear to me that those who are successful are self-aware and have a clear grasp of being in control of their own choices.
There's nothing wrong with choosing to give up sugar or carbs, for whatever reason. Framing sugar as some sort of substance with a power over you that you never could resist, however? That's scapegoating and not facing the reality of your own behavior.
0 -
Anything involving bread and the whole loaf would have been demolished.
Yeah, see, this to me shows that triggers are more specific than people give them credit for sometimes. Bread is one of the last things in the world I'll overeat on. I don't keep it in the house because I eat it so rarely, but when I do it usually ends up going bad before I eat it all. If I bake it or get really good bread I'm more likely to remember to eat it, but I still won't overeat it. The exception is naan, but only if I have curry to eat with it.
0 -
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.
0 -
lemurcat12 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.0 -
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.)0 -
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!
0 -
Nope!0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 997 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions