The surprising benefits of cutting back on sugar

2»

Replies

  • jkal1979
    jkal1979 Posts: 1,896 Member
    I quit paying attention to their ridiculous blogs after reading the one advising that you shouldn't eat back exercise calories while losing weight.
  • Christine_72
    Christine_72 Posts: 16,049 Member
    whmscll wrote: »

    While it is a good article I think most of us have to be over 40 or dying before we give a rat's tail about our health.

    I cant speak for anyone else, but I care a lot more about my health now that I'm in my 40's than I did when I was in my 20's.

    My dad is also a prime example of this, he died age 47, he wasn't bothered with healthy eating, or having too much sugar or whatever until he was dying of cancer. The day he was diagnosed was when he started watching what he ate and went on a "health kick", but it was too late for him by then...

  • macgurlnet
    macgurlnet Posts: 1,946 Member
    jkal1979 wrote: »
    I quit paying attention to their ridiculous blogs after reading the one advising that you shouldn't eat back exercise calories while losing weight.

    I really want to say I'm surprised by this but I'm not. Not in the least.

    ~Lyssa
  • malibu927
    malibu927 Posts: 17,562 Member
    whmscll wrote: »

    While it is a good article I think most of us have to be over 40 or dying before we give a rat's tail about our health.

    I started losing at 32 to avoid the health problems that plagued my parents' 40s and 50s...
  • snikkins
    snikkins Posts: 1,282 Member
    whmscll wrote: »

    While it is a good article I think most of us have to be over 40 or dying before we give a rat's tail about our health.

    I cant speak for anyone else, but I care a lot more about my health now that I'm in my 40's than I did when I was in my 20's.

    My dad is also a prime example of this, he died age 47, he wasn't bothered with healthy eating, or having too much sugar or whatever until he was dying of cancer. The day he was diagnosed was when he started watching what he ate and went on a "health kick", but it was too late for him by then...

    Out of curiosity, are you suggesting that how he ate caused his cancer?
  • SideSteel
    SideSteel Posts: 11,068 Member
    I didn't enjoy this blog and I commented as such. Not sure if my comments will go through or not though...
  • Christine_72
    Christine_72 Posts: 16,049 Member
    edited June 2015
    snikkins wrote: »
    whmscll wrote: »

    While it is a good article I think most of us have to be over 40 or dying before we give a rat's tail about our health.

    I cant speak for anyone else, but I care a lot more about my health now that I'm in my 40's than I did when I was in my 20's.

    My dad is also a prime example of this, he died age 47, he wasn't bothered with healthy eating, or having too much sugar or whatever until he was dying of cancer. The day he was diagnosed was when he started watching what he ate and went on a "health kick", but it was too late for him by then...

    Out of curiosity, are you suggesting that how he ate caused his cancer?

    No not at all. Spending too much time in the Aussie sun caused his cancer.
    My point was that he didn't pay much attention to his health or what he ate or drank until he was actually dying. Which tied in to what Gale said about not worrying about our health until we're dying of some horrible disease..



  • Sarasmaintaining
    Sarasmaintaining Posts: 1,027 Member
    edited June 2015
    MrM27 wrote: »
    Another worthless blog promoted by MFP.

    It's because I don't fear sugar like the boogeyman it's made out to be in the article and:

    My blood pressure went from 137/84 resting as a fat boy to 90/57 just 2 weeks ago as a healthy male.
    I went from high liver enzymes as a fat boy to normal as normal weight male
    Cholesterol improved all around from 225 to 164

    The horror!!!!

    Yep, I don't fear sugar either and my latest blood test results from last month-

    Fasting glucose number: 86 (pre-diabetic range back in 2012, when I was overweight)

    -Total cholesterol: 150

    -HDL cholesterol: 58

    -Triglycerides: 49

    -LDL cholesterol: 82

    -Coronary Heart Disease Risk 2.6 (less than 4.4 is recommended)

    Plus my blood pressure is great, I have no health problems and I'm not on any medications.

    I'm eating a chocolate chip cookie right now :D
  • Sarasmaintaining
    Sarasmaintaining Posts: 1,027 Member
    edited June 2015
    whmscll wrote: »

    While it is a good article I think most of us have to be over 40 or dying before we give a rat's tail about our health.

    This is is rude and condescending. Most of us here care very deeply about our health, that's why we're here. And age has nothing to do with it.
  • professionalHobbyist
    professionalHobbyist Posts: 1,316 Member
    It was a fine article

    I'm glad they put it up.

    The is no redeeming quality to adding in empty calories to my diet.

    It works for me.


  • snikkins
    snikkins Posts: 1,282 Member
    snikkins wrote: »
    whmscll wrote: »

    While it is a good article I think most of us have to be over 40 or dying before we give a rat's tail about our health.

    I cant speak for anyone else, but I care a lot more about my health now that I'm in my 40's than I did when I was in my 20's.

    My dad is also a prime example of this, he died age 47, he wasn't bothered with healthy eating, or having too much sugar or whatever until he was dying of cancer. The day he was diagnosed was when he started watching what he ate and went on a "health kick", but it was too late for him by then...

    Out of curiosity, are you suggesting that how he ate caused his cancer?

    No not at all. Spending too much time in the Aussie sun caused his cancer.
    My point was that he didn't pay much attention to his health or what he ate or drank until he was actually dying. Which tied in to what Gale said about not worrying about our health until we're dying of some horrible disease..



    Ah got it. I am sorry about your dad, though. That sucks.
  • Christine_72
    Christine_72 Posts: 16,049 Member
    snikkins wrote: »
    snikkins wrote: »
    whmscll wrote: »

    While it is a good article I think most of us have to be over 40 or dying before we give a rat's tail about our health.

    I cant speak for anyone else, but I care a lot more about my health now that I'm in my 40's than I did when I was in my 20's.

    My dad is also a prime example of this, he died age 47, he wasn't bothered with healthy eating, or having too much sugar or whatever until he was dying of cancer. The day he was diagnosed was when he started watching what he ate and went on a "health kick", but it was too late for him by then...

    Out of curiosity, are you suggesting that how he ate caused his cancer?

    No not at all. Spending too much time in the Aussie sun caused his cancer.
    My point was that he didn't pay much attention to his health or what he ate or drank until he was actually dying. Which tied in to what Gale said about not worrying about our health until we're dying of some horrible disease..



    Ah got it. I am sorry about your dad, though. That sucks.

    :smile:

    Thankyou :flowerforyou:

  • snikkins
    snikkins Posts: 1,282 Member
    snikkins wrote: »
    snikkins wrote: »
    whmscll wrote: »

    While it is a good article I think most of us have to be over 40 or dying before we give a rat's tail about our health.

    I cant speak for anyone else, but I care a lot more about my health now that I'm in my 40's than I did when I was in my 20's.

    My dad is also a prime example of this, he died age 47, he wasn't bothered with healthy eating, or having too much sugar or whatever until he was dying of cancer. The day he was diagnosed was when he started watching what he ate and went on a "health kick", but it was too late for him by then...

    Out of curiosity, are you suggesting that how he ate caused his cancer?

    No not at all. Spending too much time in the Aussie sun caused his cancer.
    My point was that he didn't pay much attention to his health or what he ate or drank until he was actually dying. Which tied in to what Gale said about not worrying about our health until we're dying of some horrible disease..



    Ah got it. I am sorry about your dad, though. That sucks.

    :smile:

    Thankyou :flowerforyou:

    Also, apologies if I came across as a jerk. :flowerforyou:

  • Acg67
    Acg67 Posts: 12,142 Member
    It was a fine article

    I'm glad they put it up.

    The is no redeeming quality to adding in empty calories to my diet.

    It works for me.


    So epidemiological studies that show sugar is associated with all manners of ills is a "fine article", do you also feel the same of epidemiological studies showing fat is associated with all sorts of bad health outcomes? Or perhaps epidemiological studies showing low carb diets are worse for mortality than other diets?
  • Christine_72
    Christine_72 Posts: 16,049 Member
    snikkins wrote: »
    snikkins wrote: »
    snikkins wrote: »
    whmscll wrote: »

    While it is a good article I think most of us have to be over 40 or dying before we give a rat's tail about our health.

    I cant speak for anyone else, but I care a lot more about my health now that I'm in my 40's than I did when I was in my 20's.

    My dad is also a prime example of this, he died age 47, he wasn't bothered with healthy eating, or having too much sugar or whatever until he was dying of cancer. The day he was diagnosed was when he started watching what he ate and went on a "health kick", but it was too late for him by then...

    Out of curiosity, are you suggesting that how he ate caused his cancer?

    No not at all. Spending too much time in the Aussie sun caused his cancer.
    My point was that he didn't pay much attention to his health or what he ate or drank until he was actually dying. Which tied in to what Gale said about not worrying about our health until we're dying of some horrible disease..



    Ah got it. I am sorry about your dad, though. That sucks.

    :smile:

    Thankyou :flowerforyou:

    Also, apologies if I came across as a jerk. :flowerforyou:

    You absolutely did not. All good :smile: I understand why you asked, my comment could have been taken that way xx

  • This content has been removed.
  • ohmscheeks
    ohmscheeks Posts: 840 Member
    Ninkyou wrote: »

    You gon die.

    Seriously though... sugar is not evil.

    Tee hee!

  • Lleldiranne
    Lleldiranne Posts: 5,516 Member
    I accepted a 2-day challenge to eat no added sugar (just for kicks, and the experience, I guess).

    I found that "added sugar" is a really ambiguous term. It could be defined as "sugar that's not supposed to be there" ... but then, all sweets are fine by that definition because the sugar is supposed to be there. Maybe it's "refined sugar" ... but then, that allows honey, maple syrups, etc, as sweeteners, and I'm not sure that really captures what they mean (I think that honey-made taffy or whatever would be considered a no-no on this). No white sugar? Great, make my cookies with brown sugar.

    I mean, when making bread, you use some sort of sugar/honey/molasses/etc to feed the yeast. Is that an added sugar? So does no sugar = no bread? I don't know of many who would argue that corn chips and white tortillas are more healthy for one than whole grain bread. That's just one example.

    So, that's one reason why I think this whole sugar scare is a bit silly. How exactly do you define what sugar is good or okay (like what's in fruits and vegetables, which few would say we must avoid; though I know there are some fanatics who do) and what sugar is "bad"?

    It's much better to eat a balanced diet, meeting your macro and micronutrient goals and allowing for treats as they fit, whether they have "added sugar" or not.
  • This content has been removed.
  • wizzybeth
    wizzybeth Posts: 3,578 Member
    edited June 2015
    whmscll wrote: »

    While it is a good article I think most of us have to be over 40 or dying before we give a rat's tail about our health.

    I cant speak for anyone else, but I care a lot more about my health now that I'm in my 40's than I did when I was in my 20's.

    My dad is also a prime example of this, he died age 47, he wasn't bothered with healthy eating, or having too much sugar or whatever until he was dying of cancer. The day he was diagnosed was when he started watching what he ate and went on a "health kick", but it was too late for him by then...

    And my dad ate whatever he wanted, whenever he wanted, smoked camels every day and lived to be 77. My personal theory, no idea how valid, is that some people are more prone to cancer than others based on genetics. But I could most definitely be very wrong.

    With the amount of smoking my dad did from the time he was a young teen, he "should" have died of lung cancer years before he did die (of a heart attack.)
  • Christine_72
    Christine_72 Posts: 16,049 Member
    wizzybeth wrote: »
    whmscll wrote: »

    While it is a good article I think most of us have to be over 40 or dying before we give a rat's tail about our health.

    I cant speak for anyone else, but I care a lot more about my health now that I'm in my 40's than I did when I was in my 20's.

    My dad is also a prime example of this, he died age 47, he wasn't bothered with healthy eating, or having too much sugar or whatever until he was dying of cancer. The day he was diagnosed was when he started watching what he ate and went on a "health kick", but it was too late for him by then...

    And my dad ate whatever he wanted, whenever he wanted, smoked camels every day and lived to be 77. My personal theory, no idea how valid, is that some people are more prone to cancer than others based on genetics. But I could most definitely be very wrong.

    With the amount of smoking my dad did from the time he was a young teen, he "should" have died of lung cancer years before he did die (of a heart attack.)

    I definitely agree with genetics playing a role. There's plenty of stories out there of old people smoking their whole life, then give up the smokes and drop dead 6mths later. Urban myth perhaps..

  • wizzybeth
    wizzybeth Posts: 3,578 Member
    This old lady smoked cigarettes and ate a kilogram of chocolate every week, died at age 122. I first heard of her because of a very amusing story about her apartment. Then I looked up the Wikipedia article on her. It's pretty fascinating.

    120 Year Old Lease On Life Outlives Apartment Heir

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanne_Calment
  • malibu927
    malibu927 Posts: 17,562 Member
    edited June 2015
    shell1005 wrote: »
    whmscll wrote: »

    While it is a good article I think most of us have to be over 40 or dying before we give a rat's tail about our health.

    I cant speak for anyone else, but I care a lot more about my health now that I'm in my 40's than I did when I was in my 20's.

    My dad is also a prime example of this, he died age 47, he wasn't bothered with healthy eating, or having too much sugar or whatever until he was dying of cancer. The day he was diagnosed was when he started watching what he ate and went on a "health kick", but it was too late for him by then...

    So sorry for your loss.

    I have a similar story. I lost my mom when I was 29. I had been overweight, but not really motivated to do much about it up until that point. My mom died from obesity and diabetes related complications. If she had taken care of her weight and her disease, I fundamentally believe she would still be alive today.

    I decided to lose weight and get healthy as a way to honor her.

    And how that relates to the subject at hand:
    1. I cared long before I was 40. Sometimes life smacks you and either you learn from it and better yourself or you don't.
    2. I could have decided that since my mom was a diabetic and that it in essence killed her that it was the EVIL SUGAR that did it. But that isn't true. My mom didn't follow her doctors orders. She didn't test her blood sugar. She ate what she wanted and ate it in excess. My mom didn't take her disease seriously until she was losing toes left and right and was waiting for a kidney transplant. It was way too late by then. Sugar wasn't what did it to her...it was her choices and her inability to lose the weight. People wanting to see sugar as evil as just looking for a scapegoat IMO.

    Sugar isn't killing you, your weight might very well be.

    I completely understand your story. My dad was diagnosed in 1997 just before his 43rd birthday, and he only now at 61 is seriously watching his intake and monitoring his blood sugar readings. It probably contributed to his 3-month hospital stay/cardiac arrest a few years back for what should have been routine surgery. I decided a year and a half ago that wasn't how I wanted to live my life, especially as I was creeping closer to that age.
This discussion has been closed.