Day 2 with no sugar....I'm addicted!

Options
2»

Replies

  • Sabine_Stroehm
    Sabine_Stroehm Posts: 19,263 Member
    edited April 2015
    Options
    DaneanP wrote: »
    Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
    DaneanP wrote: »
    Food for thought: http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html

    Indeed. Yep, the average person can eat at a deficit while eating crap every three hours and make the scale go down.

    What is it "food for thought" for?

    That sugar isn't the enemy. That CICO works. Seems like some folks are always looking for a particular food to blame. Gets old, IMO.
    ok.
    Is it a bad thing to try to want to eat fewer foods with added sugars? Most major medical and health organizations acknowledge we eat too much. Is it a bad thing to want to eat a healthier diet over all? Seems like most of us could benefit from that. If her approach is to try to go cold turkey for a bit, meh, I'm okay with that.
    In fact, I did that.

    Just not sure what the point of the (very unhealthy looking, imho) twinkie guy post was. He did something extreme, kinda gross, and probably not very healthy in the grand scheme of things. But yes. He lost weight.
  • Sabine_Stroehm
    Sabine_Stroehm Posts: 19,263 Member
    edited April 2015
    Options
    herrspoons wrote: »
    Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
    DaneanP wrote: »
    Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
    DaneanP wrote: »
    Food for thought: http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html

    Indeed. Yep, the average person can eat at a deficit while eating crap every three hours and make the scale go down.

    What is it "food for thought" for?

    That sugar isn't the enemy. That CICO works. Seems like some folks are always looking for a particular food to blame. Gets old, IMO.
    ok.
    Is it a bad thing to try to want to eat fewer foods with added sugars? Most major medical and health organizations acknowledge we eat too much. Is it a bad thing to want to eat a healthier diet over all? Seems like most of us could benefit from that. If her approach is to try to go cold turkey for a bit, meh, I'm okay with that.
    In fact, I did that.

    Just not sure what the point of the (very unhealthy looking, imho) twinkie guy post was. He did something extreme, kinda gross, and probably not very healthy in the grand scheme of things. But yes. He lost weight.

    Reducing sugar is a good idea. Cutting it out completely? Eh... not so much.

    It's also almost impossible. That said, if someone wants to try to eliminate all added sugars for a few weeks to see if it changes their tastes, makes them feel more in control, whatever? There is NO physical harm in trying it.

    At all.

    And, in reality, many who say they are "quitting" sugar, end up learning what has added sugars, learn what their choices are, learn how to make better choices, and if they keep it up, they eat less added sugar. Again, no harm in that.
    And in the few weeks when they're a new convert? eh, there's lots of zealots here. Of all varieties. It's no more "annoying" than any of the other new converts.
  • Sabine_Stroehm
    Sabine_Stroehm Posts: 19,263 Member
    Options
    herrspoons wrote: »
    Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
    herrspoons wrote: »
    Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
    DaneanP wrote: »
    Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
    DaneanP wrote: »
    Food for thought: http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html

    Indeed. Yep, the average person can eat at a deficit while eating crap every three hours and make the scale go down.

    What is it "food for thought" for?

    That sugar isn't the enemy. That CICO works. Seems like some folks are always looking for a particular food to blame. Gets old, IMO.
    ok.
    Is it a bad thing to try to want to eat fewer foods with added sugars? Most major medical and health organizations acknowledge we eat too much. Is it a bad thing to want to eat a healthier diet over all? Seems like most of us could benefit from that. If her approach is to try to go cold turkey for a bit, meh, I'm okay with that.
    In fact, I did that.

    Just not sure what the point of the (very unhealthy looking, imho) twinkie guy post was. He did something extreme, kinda gross, and probably not very healthy in the grand scheme of things. But yes. He lost weight.

    Reducing sugar is a good idea. Cutting it out completely? Eh... not so much.

    It's also almost impossible. That said, if someone wants to try to eliminate all added sugars for a few weeks to see if it changes their tastes, makes them feel more in control, whatever? There is NO physical harm in trying it.

    At all.

    And, in reality, many who say they are "quitting" sugar, end up learning what has added sugars, learn what their choices are, learn how to make better choices, and if they keep it up, they eat less added sugar. Again, no harm in that.
    And in the few weeks when they're a new convert? eh, there's lots of zealots here. Of all varieties. It's no more "annoying" than any of the other new converts.

    Which is fair enough as long as we don't get the usual utter bulls**t that goes with anti sugar zealotry.

    Ain't no one got time to that.

    I can go with that. As long as we don't also go with the opposite. cheers
  • snowflake930
    snowflake930 Posts: 2,188 Member
    Options
    Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
    herrspoons wrote: »
    Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
    DaneanP wrote: »
    Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
    DaneanP wrote: »
    Food for thought: http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html

    Indeed. Yep, the average person can eat at a deficit while eating crap every three hours and make the scale go down.

    What is it "food for thought" for?

    That sugar isn't the enemy. That CICO works. Seems like some folks are always looking for a particular food to blame. Gets old, IMO.
    ok.
    Is it a bad thing to try to want to eat fewer foods with added sugars? Most major medical and health organizations acknowledge we eat too much. Is it a bad thing to want to eat a healthier diet over all? Seems like most of us could benefit from that. If her approach is to try to go cold turkey for a bit, meh, I'm okay with that.
    In fact, I did that.

    Just not sure what the point of the (very unhealthy looking, imho) twinkie guy post was. He did something extreme, kinda gross, and probably not very healthy in the grand scheme of things. But yes. He lost weight.

    Reducing sugar is a good idea. Cutting it out completely? Eh... not so much.

    It's also almost impossible. That said, if someone wants to try to eliminate all added sugars for a few weeks to see if it changes their tastes, makes them feel more in control, whatever? There is NO physical harm in trying it.

    At all.

    And, in reality, many who say they are "quitting" sugar, end up learning what has added sugars, learn what their choices are, learn how to make better choices, and if they keep it up, they eat less added sugar. Again, no harm in that.
    And in the few weeks when they're a new convert? eh, there's lots of zealots here. Of all varieties. It's no more "annoying" than any of the other new converts.

    ^^Not almost impossible, it IS impossible. There is naturally occurring sugar in everything. You can not totally avoid it, nor should you.

    Correct that it is over consumed, and is probably a good idea to limit foods with a lot of added sugar and sodium (most packaged, overly processed foods).

    A lot of us, myself included, cut out as much as possible, but you quickly learn that you can make better choices. All things in moderation so hopefully our new way of eating is sustainable even after we reach our goals.

Categories