Sugars
Options
Replies
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »I knew the answer so figured it would be unfair to "guess." ;-)
I have told the story before. Funny how none of the sugar police who derailed a fruit thread would try to answer, isn't it?
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »
For the record, no I don't think there's anything to worry about in OP's diet which goes over sugars due to fruits.mantium999 wrote: »
A fact I acknowledged at the very outset - by saying that high amounts of added sugar was a risk factor rather than a cause of disease. But in case I didn't make it clearer, yes, I agree that they are not saying to avoid sugary drinks ONLY because of sugar.
Well, they raise blood sugar because they have added sugar... I mean you can't get sugar from no sugar, right? And consistently (and artificially) elevated blood sugar levels are a risk factor for diabetes for those who currently do not have the disease.
Let me first reiterate what I said - that long term AND excess refined sugar intake can cause medical issues (NOT that any refined sugar intake at all is a problem). The link you provided proves that point. The From that very link:stevencloser wrote: »
And excess and long-term refined sugar intake.ihatetodietalways wrote: »Diabetes Epidemic & You, by Dr. J.R. Kraft. He is a renowned doctor in Chicago and he publishes the fact that fasting glucose can miss 20% of diabetics. Yes. He has looked at 15,000 people from age 3-90. There is a lot of information in this book.
And there are TONS of papers about low carb diets. Phinney, Volek, Pulmetter, Noakes, Attia, and others are leading the research.
Stop telling people to eat sugars and instead tell them, go check your fasting insulin with a simple blood test at the doctor. Furthermore, since insulin resistance is a true phenomenon (it is observed before pre-diabetes), we may want to give our pancreas a break and take the carbs slowly. I don't vilify sugar and carbs. There are people who chose to limit them. That is all.
You are equating people with a medical reason for reducing carbs with people who have normal pancreatic function (the majority of the population). They are not the same. Too many carbs does not cause insulin resistance, diabetes, etc. The inability to properly regulate blood glucose is the main SYMPTOM of those medical issues. The causes are many and include:- genetics
- excess weight
- age
- long term use of certain medications, including statins and antidepressants
Nope.
http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/myths/
Note, that says sugar-sweetened beverages should be avoided to PREVENT diabetes, not simply to manage one's existing diabetes.The American Diabetes Association recommends that people should avoid intake of sugar-sweetened beverages to help prevent diabetes. Sugar-sweetened beverages include beverages like:
regular soda
fruit punch
fruit drinks
energy drinks
sports drinks
sweet tea
other sugary drinks
In fact, the ADA source you linked supports the idea that long term and (not or) excess refined sugar intake can cause diabetes. It supports the intake of sugars and desserts in moderated amounts as part of a balanced diet and specifically tells people to avoid drinks with high added sugar contents.
you left off this little caveat at the end of the list:
These will raise blood glucose and can provide several hundred calories in just one serving!
so they are recommended to be avoided to keep blood sugar down and avoid a mass dose of calories in one serving, not just because they have sugar.
I have no quarrel with CICO - in fact, I believe in it. The point I was making is simply that added sugars in excess amounts ARE a risk factor in diabetes and other metabolic troubles, not that it is the only factor, nor that no added sugar should be consumed whatsoever if one hopes to avoid these diseases, nor any insane thing of that sort. That consumption of added sugars in high amounts long term is a factor is supported by the American Diabetes Association.
OK but my point is they are not saying avoid it JUST because of sugar….
Would the OP's sugar intake, based on her post, be seen as excessive, and thereby be putting her at risk for disease? It seems the tangents of sugars increasing risks of disease that the OP never mentioned, caused her to abandon this thread. I wonder if she ever found a useful answer to her particular question?
Then why on God's green earth are you here preaching about the evils of excess sugar intake? No one here is advocating for excess sugar intake, or excess food intake, period. If one is otherwise meeting their other macronutrient needs, is eating at maintenance or below by monitoring their overall caloric intake, then they're not intaking excess anything, right? Is anyone here saying "OMG I totes only eat doughnuts and Twinkies all day and everyone on this board should do the exact thing because it's perfectly healthy!"
No? No one is saying that. The anti-sugar brigade on a calorie-counting website is useless (aside from going around humble bragging about their nutritional superiority). We are all keeping sugar intake low because we are counting calories. Prolonged and excess calorie intake, no matter the source, will eventually lead to obesity, which can in turn lead to heart disease, diabetes, etc.
Christ.
You can take the name of any Gods or Deities you like, but your very reaction about "anti-sugar" brigade shows the problem I am trying to address.
You are ignoring the context of this thread and what people actually said to make up a problem that you are then pretending to address.There are a lot of people here - yourself included, it would seem - who are perfectly reasonable in their own approach to diet and nutrition but have a fit when anyone dares suggest that excess sugar intake can have adverse health effects (more so than excess fiber intake, for example).
Absolutely no one has a problem with the idea that excess sugar intake can have negative health effects (including, in large part that it often results in excess calories or nutritionally deficient diets--the WHO reasoning that many of us have repeatedly agreed with). As I said above, the debate is over what "excess" is, and here we are addressing a question about a limit of 24 grams that applies to ALL sugar and thus is a terrible guideline, IMO. (It is also neither the current MFP guideline nor one recommended by an reputable source--all limits that low are based on added sugar only.)
Often it is suggested that ANY added sugar is bad (and here we have someone claiming that plus that two pieces of fruit are too much) and that's what we are arguing against. Whenever someone mentions excess sugar consumption, people support and suggest ways to reduce it. IMO, it's patently obvious that eating excess sugar when trying to lose weight isn't helpful or especially healthy but everyone already knows that, so why pretend like I think others are dumb just to grandstand? Instead, I'm concerned about the numerous worries I see from people who think (due to rhetoric from people like Lustig and his even more extreme disciples) that fruit is bad, that including ANY sweets in your diet is bad or will prevent a loss even within your calories, that sugar is "addictive" and to blame for people's weight issues, etc. This is all bad yet common information among dieting folks.I began my participation in this thread in order, specifically, to respond to a blanket claim that sugar is not bad (as opposed to a more precise and correct claim that it isn't bad in all quantities).
Again, you are intentionally ignoring context. Everything is bad in excess--saying something isn't bad doesn't mean "go insane with it." Among other things, everyone says "within your calories and a nutritionally balanced diet" which makes it basically impossible to be extreme or eat huge amounts of sugar regularly (unless you are an endurance athlete and in pretty good shape/a bigger person, I suppose). The specific person we were talking to here was looking at a limit of 24 grams for ALL sugar! This is why you are being grouped with those who are anti all sugar--suggesting this is at all a thread about excess consumption raises questions about why you think that, as two pieces of fruit or the other things that have been recommended here are NOT excess, IMO (and I told you what I'd consider excess and not upthread).As for concerns about sugar being raised on a calorie-counting site, one reason to do so is that excess sugar intake makes maintaining one's calorie goal difficult, not simply because sugary foods themselves contain calories but also because of cravings it tends to create.
There are NO indications that this is relevant to OP's post, and many, many people don't experience cravings just because they eat food with sugar. Indeed, I tend to think that's a psychological reaction basically encouraged by labeling sugar as a whole "bad." Thus, bringing it in out of the blue as a reason to avoid sugar and to claim that eating any sugar makes meeting a calorie goal difficult--when OP was specifically asking the common question about whether sugar mattered IF you, among other things, were meeting that goal, and when everyone had said that IF you are meeting your goal it's not a problem--supports the conclusion that you ARE part of the more extreme anti sugar sorts. Clearly if someone tries and cannot meet their limit then they should figure out what's going on and look at whether there's some reason they are overeating despite knowing what they should eat.
I am strongly in favor of understanding yourself, your diet, and why you eat as you do, as well as where your excess calories are coming from, as I think everyone here is. What bothers me is that all of you who focus first and only on sugar seem to have decided that sugar is a problem for everyone and to want to transfer your own prior issues onto the rest of us. If I had approached my diet by cutting sugar, I wouldn't have lost weight as well as I did, because most of my excess calories weren't related to sweet foods. (Neither do I have a problem or lack of self-control with carbs, as is also commonly asserted as some truth that must apply to everyone.)
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »
For the record, no I don't think there's anything to worry about in OP's diet which goes over sugars due to fruits.mantium999 wrote: »
A fact I acknowledged at the very outset - by saying that high amounts of added sugar was a risk factor rather than a cause of disease. But in case I didn't make it clearer, yes, I agree that they are not saying to avoid sugary drinks ONLY because of sugar.
Well, they raise blood sugar because they have added sugar... I mean you can't get sugar from no sugar, right? And consistently (and artificially) elevated blood sugar levels are a risk factor for diabetes for those who currently do not have the disease.
Let me first reiterate what I said - that long term AND excess refined sugar intake can cause medical issues (NOT that any refined sugar intake at all is a problem). The link you provided proves that point. The From that very link:stevencloser wrote: »
And excess and long-term refined sugar intake.ihatetodietalways wrote: »Diabetes Epidemic & You, by Dr. J.R. Kraft. He is a renowned doctor in Chicago and he publishes the fact that fasting glucose can miss 20% of diabetics. Yes. He has looked at 15,000 people from age 3-90. There is a lot of information in this book.
And there are TONS of papers about low carb diets. Phinney, Volek, Pulmetter, Noakes, Attia, and others are leading the research.
Stop telling people to eat sugars and instead tell them, go check your fasting insulin with a simple blood test at the doctor. Furthermore, since insulin resistance is a true phenomenon (it is observed before pre-diabetes), we may want to give our pancreas a break and take the carbs slowly. I don't vilify sugar and carbs. There are people who chose to limit them. That is all.
You are equating people with a medical reason for reducing carbs with people who have normal pancreatic function (the majority of the population). They are not the same. Too many carbs does not cause insulin resistance, diabetes, etc. The inability to properly regulate blood glucose is the main SYMPTOM of those medical issues. The causes are many and include:- genetics
- excess weight
- age
- long term use of certain medications, including statins and antidepressants
Nope.
http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/myths/
Note, that says sugar-sweetened beverages should be avoided to PREVENT diabetes, not simply to manage one's existing diabetes.The American Diabetes Association recommends that people should avoid intake of sugar-sweetened beverages to help prevent diabetes. Sugar-sweetened beverages include beverages like:
regular soda
fruit punch
fruit drinks
energy drinks
sports drinks
sweet tea
other sugary drinks
In fact, the ADA source you linked supports the idea that long term and (not or) excess refined sugar intake can cause diabetes. It supports the intake of sugars and desserts in moderated amounts as part of a balanced diet and specifically tells people to avoid drinks with high added sugar contents.
you left off this little caveat at the end of the list:
These will raise blood glucose and can provide several hundred calories in just one serving!
so they are recommended to be avoided to keep blood sugar down and avoid a mass dose of calories in one serving, not just because they have sugar.
I have no quarrel with CICO - in fact, I believe in it. The point I was making is simply that added sugars in excess amounts ARE a risk factor in diabetes and other metabolic troubles, not that it is the only factor, nor that no added sugar should be consumed whatsoever if one hopes to avoid these diseases, nor any insane thing of that sort. That consumption of added sugars in high amounts long term is a factor is supported by the American Diabetes Association.
OK but my point is they are not saying avoid it JUST because of sugar….
Would the OP's sugar intake, based on her post, be seen as excessive, and thereby be putting her at risk for disease? It seems the tangents of sugars increasing risks of disease that the OP never mentioned, caused her to abandon this thread. I wonder if she ever found a useful answer to her particular question?
Then why on God's green earth are you here preaching about the evils of excess sugar intake? No one here is advocating for excess sugar intake, or excess food intake, period. If one is otherwise meeting their other macronutrient needs, is eating at maintenance or below by monitoring their overall caloric intake, then they're not intaking excess anything, right? Is anyone here saying "OMG I totes only eat doughnuts and Twinkies all day and everyone on this board should do the exact thing because it's perfectly healthy!"
No? No one is saying that. The anti-sugar brigade on a calorie-counting website is useless (aside from going around humble bragging about their nutritional superiority). We are all keeping sugar intake low because we are counting calories. Prolonged and excess calorie intake, no matter the source, will eventually lead to obesity, which can in turn lead to heart disease, diabetes, etc.
Christ.
You can take the name of any Gods or Deities you like, but your very reaction about "anti-sugar" brigade shows the problem I am trying to address.
You are ignoring the context of this thread and what people actually said to make up a problem that you are then pretending to address.There are a lot of people here - yourself included, it would seem - who are perfectly reasonable in their own approach to diet and nutrition but have a fit when anyone dares suggest that excess sugar intake can have adverse health effects (more so than excess fiber intake, for example).
Absolutely no one has a problem with the idea that excess sugar intake can have negative health effects (including, in large part that it often results in excess calories or nutritionally deficient diets--the WHO reasoning that many of us have repeatedly agreed with). As I said above, the debate is over what "excess" is, and here we are addressing a question about a limit of 24 grams that applies to ALL sugar and thus is a terrible guideline, IMO. (It is also neither the current MFP guideline nor one recommended by an reputable source--all limits that low are based on added sugar only.)
Often it is suggested that ANY added sugar is bad (and here we have someone claiming that plus that two pieces of fruit are too much) and that's what we are arguing against. Whenever someone mentions excess sugar consumption, people support and suggest ways to reduce it. IMO, it's patently obvious that eating excess sugar when trying to lose weight isn't helpful or especially healthy but everyone already knows that, so why pretend like I think others are dumb just to grandstand? Instead, I'm concerned about the numerous worries I see from people who think (due to rhetoric from people like Lustig and his even more extreme disciples) that fruit is bad, that including ANY sweets in your diet is bad or will prevent a loss even within your calories, that sugar is "addictive" and to blame for people's weight issues, etc. This is all bad yet common information among dieting folks.I began my participation in this thread in order, specifically, to respond to a blanket claim that sugar is not bad (as opposed to a more precise and correct claim that it isn't bad in all quantities).
Again, you are intentionally ignoring context. Everything is bad in excess--saying something isn't bad doesn't mean "go insane with it." Among other things, everyone says "within your calories and a nutritionally balanced diet" which makes it basically impossible to be extreme or eat huge amounts of sugar regularly (unless you are an endurance athlete and in pretty good shape/a bigger person, I suppose). The specific person we were talking to here was looking at a limit of 24 grams for ALL sugar! This is why you are being grouped with those who are anti all sugar--suggesting this is at all a thread about excess consumption raises questions about why you think that, as two pieces of fruit or the other things that have been recommended here are NOT excess, IMO (and I told you what I'd consider excess and not upthread).As for concerns about sugar being raised on a calorie-counting site, one reason to do so is that excess sugar intake makes maintaining one's calorie goal difficult, not simply because sugary foods themselves contain calories but also because of cravings it tends to create.
There are NO indications that this is relevant to OP's post, and many, many people don't experience cravings just because they eat food with sugar. Indeed, I tend to think that's a psychological reaction basically encouraged by labeling sugar as a whole "bad." Thus, bringing it in out of the blue as a reason to avoid sugar and to claim that eating any sugar makes meeting a calorie goal difficult--when OP was specifically asking the common question about whether sugar mattered IF you, among other things, were meeting that goal, and when everyone had said that IF you are meeting your goal it's not a problem--supports the conclusion that you ARE part of the more extreme anti sugar sorts. Clearly if someone tries and cannot meet their limit then they should figure out what's going on and look at whether there's some reason they are overeating despite knowing what they should eat.
I am strongly in favor of understanding yourself, your diet, and why you eat as you do, as well as where your excess calories are coming from, as I think everyone here is. What bothers me is that all of you who focus first and only on sugar seem to have decided that sugar is a problem for everyone and to want to transfer your own prior issues onto the rest of us. If I had approached my diet by cutting sugar, I wouldn't have lost weight as well as I did, because most of my excess calories weren't related to sweet foods. (Neither do I have a problem or lack of self-control with carbs, as is also commonly asserted as some truth that must apply to everyone.)
@lemurcat12 it's official ... I have a girl-crush
It's definitely mutual! (Or not unrequited, I mean.)0 -
You can take the name of any Gods or Deities you like, but your very reaction about "anti-sugar" brigade shows the problem I am trying to address. There are a lot of people here - yourself included, it would seem - who are perfectly reasonable in their own approach to diet and nutrition but have a fit when anyone dares suggest that excess sugar intake can have adverse health effects (more so than excess fiber intake, for example).
I began my participation in this thread in order, specifically, to respond to a blanket claim that sugar is not bad (as opposed to a more precise and correct claim that it isn't bad in all quantities).
You are frustrated that I am "preaching" about the evils of excess sugar intake, yet you have no trouble painting with a broad brush anyone who has a legitimate concern about the effects of added sugars and calling them all part of some "anti-sugar brigade." Your automatic assumption that anyone who raises concerns about sugars at all must be a militant anti-sugar warrior is the problem here, more than my stating facts about sugar that you don't really seem to disagree with.
As for concerns about sugar being raised on a calorie-counting site, one reason to do so is that excess sugar intake makes maintaining one's calorie goal difficult, not simply because sugary foods themselves contain calories but also because of cravings it tends to create.
Quoted the whole thing but want to specifically address the part I bolded.
I'd be pretty hard-pressed to figure out *anything* that a human can consume that wouldn't create health issues if they had too much of it. Even water. So this point that you are holding up as some sort of empirical evidence holds no water. Not even a reasonable amount.0 -
@lemurcat12 wrote:I am strongly in favor of understanding yourself, your diet, and why you eat as you do, as well as where your excess calories are coming from, as I think everyone here is. What bothers me is that all of you who focus first and only on sugar seem to have decided that sugar is a problem for everyone and to want to transfer your own prior issues onto the rest of us. If I had approached my diet by cutting sugar, I wouldn't have lost weight as well as I did, because most of my excess calories weren't related to sweet foods. (Neither do I have a problem or lack of self-control with carbs, as is also commonly asserted as some truth that must apply to everyone.)
To lemurcats point, I had not previously approached my diet by cutting sugar. At no point did I ever go crazy with sugar but I never tracked. It was only in the past few years that I noticed it becoming more and more difficult to keep the weight down that I chose to try and cut back on sugar. As soon as I did I noticed a big improvement in my ability to control my appetite. I rarely get the hungry horrors now except on those occasions when I eat too much sugar.
To those who choose to ignore sugar it may be okay if what they are doing is working for them. They probably are not over-consuming sugar anyway.
For those just starting out, it may be best to focus on calorie tracking first. Sugar is clearly not the sole cause of obesity and its contributing factor may vary from person to person.
Cutting back on sugar has been great for me. I still get some from fruit and vegetables but I try to minimize even that. It could be I have a low tolerance for sugar. My family history of diabetes may be a factor even though all my blood work is currently excellent.
The only time I deliberately look for sugar is right after an intense or long workout. A handful of grapes does the trick.
0 -
billieljaime wrote: »fearnsey71 wrote: »You only need to worry about the processed sugars. Sugar from fruit & veg eaten in it's raw state is generally ok because it still contains fibre, which will take the body longer to convert into energy. It's when you blend the fruit (either into smoothies or into juice) that the sugar becomes an issue. The fibre is pretty much removed and the body processes the sugars much more quickly. Well this is what i was told when I went through my diabetes clinics (I'm type 2). I lost my first 14lb just cutting out as much process sugar as possible. When that left me plateauing I then started CICO and exercise and I've lost another 17lb and thats since the 10th of March this year.
you need to worry about processed sugars because you have a medical condition....
OP has not ID'd a medical condition so this is not necessary for her.
There are hundreds of articles on the internet and hundreds of videos on YouTube (many by MD's dieticians and nutritionists) explaining why the totally empty calories of refined sugar are bad for you. Try Sugar and Cancer, or Sugar and Type 2 diabetes, or Sugar and Obesity, etc.
And if your having trouble meeting your caloric goal (like most people), greatly reducing refined sugar and replacing it with fat should help you meet those goals.
Don't take it from me (not an MD, dietician or nutritionist). Do your own due diligence. And please don't listen to some random poster who implies that sugar is just wonderful.
One of hundreds - http://authoritynutrition.com/10-disturbing-reasons-why-sugar-is-bad/
why don't you go ahead and link to a peer reviewed source, which authority nutrition is not.
I eat all kinds of sugar and I am a ten year cancer survivor, and every year at my physical my blood work comes back nearly perfect.
Did you ever think that cancer might be linked to obesity and obese people tend to consume more sugar because they are obese?
There are a thousand different factors that go into what causes cancer and trying to isolate one is idiotic.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/study-studies-article-1.2148012
pretty sure a ny times article is not what was looking for..0 -
You ate a pound of cauliflower ?mamapeach910 wrote: »Yup. I routinely eat about that at times.
No gas either.
It was roasted with smoked paprika and utterly delicious. I was having a hungry day.
I actually wish I could. Unfortunately, cauliflower and broccoli both digest very slowly and quantities like that make my hiatal hernia act up. Last time was a half pound of steamed broccoli because I was hungry and I was rewarded with 2 hours of agony until the stomach slid back down where it belongs.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »
No, it was not that or any other dairy product.
Since no one else is playing...
It was cauliflower. 10 grams of sugar.
You ate a pound of cauliflower ?
Yup. I routinely eat about that at times.
No gas either.
It was roasted with smoked paprika and utterly delicious. I was having a hungry day.
I can eat a pound of cauliflower easily. Or a pound of broccoli. Especially if they're roasted. I love them both.
0 -
You ate a pound of cauliflower ?mamapeach910 wrote: »Yup. I routinely eat about that at times.
No gas either.
It was roasted with smoked paprika and utterly delicious. I was having a hungry day.
I actually wish I could. Unfortunately, cauliflower and broccoli both digest very slowly and quantities like that make my hiatal hernia act up. Last time was a half pound of steamed broccoli because I was hungry and I was rewarded with 2 hours of agony until the stomach slid back down where it belongs.
Oh, that does sound painful. You poor thing!Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »
No, it was not that or any other dairy product.
Since no one else is playing...
It was cauliflower. 10 grams of sugar.
You ate a pound of cauliflower ?
Yup. I routinely eat about that at times.
No gas either.
It was roasted with smoked paprika and utterly delicious. I was having a hungry day.
I can eat a pound of cauliflower easily. Or a pound of broccoli. Especially if they're roasted. I love them both.
YES! Roasting is key.
0 -
how do you not get gas from cruciferous vegetables
0 -
FitnessTim wrote: »@lemurcat12 wrote:I am strongly in favor of understanding yourself, your diet, and why you eat as you do, as well as where your excess calories are coming from, as I think everyone here is. What bothers me is that all of you who focus first and only on sugar seem to have decided that sugar is a problem for everyone and to want to transfer your own prior issues onto the rest of us. If I had approached my diet by cutting sugar, I wouldn't have lost weight as well as I did, because most of my excess calories weren't related to sweet foods. (Neither do I have a problem or lack of self-control with carbs, as is also commonly asserted as some truth that must apply to everyone.)
To lemurcats point, I had not previously approached my diet by cutting sugar. At no point did I ever go crazy with sugar but I never tracked. It was only in the past few years that I noticed it becoming more and more difficult to keep the weight down that I chose to try and cut back on sugar. As soon as I did I noticed a big improvement in my ability to control my appetite. I rarely get the hungry horrors now except on those occasions when I eat too much sugar.
To those who choose to ignore sugar it may be okay if what they are doing is working for them. They probably are not over-consuming sugar anyway.
For those just starting out, it may be best to focus on calorie tracking first. Sugar is clearly not the sole cause of obesity and its contributing factor may vary from person to person.
Cutting back on sugar has been great for me. I still get some from fruit and vegetables but I try to minimize even that. It could be I have a low tolerance for sugar. My family history of diabetes may be a factor even though all my blood work is currently excellent.
The only time I deliberately look for sugar is right after an intense or long workout. A handful of grapes does the trick.
Its recomended to eat 3- 4 servings of fruits and veggies. They have lot of fiber, vitamins and minerals which minimise the effect of sugars. Its not a good idea to cut it down in your diet . Its good that you found cutting added sugars helped you. But maybe your weight loss was also due to overall calorie reduction.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »
For the record, no I don't think there's anything to worry about in OP's diet which goes over sugars due to fruits.mantium999 wrote: »
A fact I acknowledged at the very outset - by saying that high amounts of added sugar was a risk factor rather than a cause of disease. But in case I didn't make it clearer, yes, I agree that they are not saying to avoid sugary drinks ONLY because of sugar.
Well, they raise blood sugar because they have added sugar... I mean you can't get sugar from no sugar, right? And consistently (and artificially) elevated blood sugar levels are a risk factor for diabetes for those who currently do not have the disease.
Let me first reiterate what I said - that long term AND excess refined sugar intake can cause medical issues (NOT that any refined sugar intake at all is a problem). The link you provided proves that point. The From that very link:stevencloser wrote: »
And excess and long-term refined sugar intake.ihatetodietalways wrote: »Diabetes Epidemic & You, by Dr. J.R. Kraft. He is a renowned doctor in Chicago and he publishes the fact that fasting glucose can miss 20% of diabetics. Yes. He has looked at 15,000 people from age 3-90. There is a lot of information in this book.
And there are TONS of papers about low carb diets. Phinney, Volek, Pulmetter, Noakes, Attia, and others are leading the research.
Stop telling people to eat sugars and instead tell them, go check your fasting insulin with a simple blood test at the doctor. Furthermore, since insulin resistance is a true phenomenon (it is observed before pre-diabetes), we may want to give our pancreas a break and take the carbs slowly. I don't vilify sugar and carbs. There are people who chose to limit them. That is all.
You are equating people with a medical reason for reducing carbs with people who have normal pancreatic function (the majority of the population). They are not the same. Too many carbs does not cause insulin resistance, diabetes, etc. The inability to properly regulate blood glucose is the main SYMPTOM of those medical issues. The causes are many and include:- genetics
- excess weight
- age
- long term use of certain medications, including statins and antidepressants
Nope.
http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/myths/
Note, that says sugar-sweetened beverages should be avoided to PREVENT diabetes, not simply to manage one's existing diabetes.The American Diabetes Association recommends that people should avoid intake of sugar-sweetened beverages to help prevent diabetes. Sugar-sweetened beverages include beverages like:
regular soda
fruit punch
fruit drinks
energy drinks
sports drinks
sweet tea
other sugary drinks
In fact, the ADA source you linked supports the idea that long term and (not or) excess refined sugar intake can cause diabetes. It supports the intake of sugars and desserts in moderated amounts as part of a balanced diet and specifically tells people to avoid drinks with high added sugar contents.
you left off this little caveat at the end of the list:
These will raise blood glucose and can provide several hundred calories in just one serving!
so they are recommended to be avoided to keep blood sugar down and avoid a mass dose of calories in one serving, not just because they have sugar.
I have no quarrel with CICO - in fact, I believe in it. The point I was making is simply that added sugars in excess amounts ARE a risk factor in diabetes and other metabolic troubles, not that it is the only factor, nor that no added sugar should be consumed whatsoever if one hopes to avoid these diseases, nor any insane thing of that sort. That consumption of added sugars in high amounts long term is a factor is supported by the American Diabetes Association.
OK but my point is they are not saying avoid it JUST because of sugar….
Would the OP's sugar intake, based on her post, be seen as excessive, and thereby be putting her at risk for disease? It seems the tangents of sugars increasing risks of disease that the OP never mentioned, caused her to abandon this thread. I wonder if she ever found a useful answer to her particular question?
Then why on God's green earth are you here preaching about the evils of excess sugar intake? No one here is advocating for excess sugar intake, or excess food intake, period. If one is otherwise meeting their other macronutrient needs, is eating at maintenance or below by monitoring their overall caloric intake, then they're not intaking excess anything, right? Is anyone here saying "OMG I totes only eat doughnuts and Twinkies all day and everyone on this board should do the exact thing because it's perfectly healthy!"
No? No one is saying that. The anti-sugar brigade on a calorie-counting website is useless (aside from going around humble bragging about their nutritional superiority). We are all keeping sugar intake low because we are counting calories. Prolonged and excess calorie intake, no matter the source, will eventually lead to obesity, which can in turn lead to heart disease, diabetes, etc.
Christ.
You can take the name of any Gods or Deities you like, but your very reaction about "anti-sugar" brigade shows the problem I am trying to address.
You are ignoring the context of this thread and what people actually said to make up a problem that you are then pretending to address.There are a lot of people here - yourself included, it would seem - who are perfectly reasonable in their own approach to diet and nutrition but have a fit when anyone dares suggest that excess sugar intake can have adverse health effects (more so than excess fiber intake, for example).
Absolutely no one has a problem with the idea that excess sugar intake can have negative health effects (including, in large part that it often results in excess calories or nutritionally deficient diets--the WHO reasoning that many of us have repeatedly agreed with). As I said above, the debate is over what "excess" is, and here we are addressing a question about a limit of 24 grams that applies to ALL sugar and thus is a terrible guideline, IMO. (It is also neither the current MFP guideline nor one recommended by an reputable source--all limits that low are based on added sugar only.)
Often it is suggested that ANY added sugar is bad (and here we have someone claiming that plus that two pieces of fruit are too much) and that's what we are arguing against. Whenever someone mentions excess sugar consumption, people support and suggest ways to reduce it. IMO, it's patently obvious that eating excess sugar when trying to lose weight isn't helpful or especially healthy but everyone already knows that, so why pretend like I think others are dumb just to grandstand? Instead, I'm concerned about the numerous worries I see from people who think (due to rhetoric from people like Lustig and his even more extreme disciples) that fruit is bad, that including ANY sweets in your diet is bad or will prevent a loss even within your calories, that sugar is "addictive" and to blame for people's weight issues, etc. This is all bad yet common information among dieting folks.I began my participation in this thread in order, specifically, to respond to a blanket claim that sugar is not bad (as opposed to a more precise and correct claim that it isn't bad in all quantities).
Again, you are intentionally ignoring context. Everything is bad in excess--saying something isn't bad doesn't mean "go insane with it." Among other things, everyone says "within your calories and a nutritionally balanced diet" which makes it basically impossible to be extreme or eat huge amounts of sugar regularly (unless you are an endurance athlete and in pretty good shape/a bigger person, I suppose). The specific person we were talking to here was looking at a limit of 24 grams for ALL sugar! This is why you are being grouped with those who are anti all sugar--suggesting this is at all a thread about excess consumption raises questions about why you think that, as two pieces of fruit or the other things that have been recommended here are NOT excess, IMO (and I told you what I'd consider excess and not upthread).As for concerns about sugar being raised on a calorie-counting site, one reason to do so is that excess sugar intake makes maintaining one's calorie goal difficult, not simply because sugary foods themselves contain calories but also because of cravings it tends to create.
There are NO indications that this is relevant to OP's post, and many, many people don't experience cravings just because they eat food with sugar. Indeed, I tend to think that's a psychological reaction basically encouraged by labeling sugar as a whole "bad." Thus, bringing it in out of the blue as a reason to avoid sugar and to claim that eating any sugar makes meeting a calorie goal difficult--when OP was specifically asking the common question about whether sugar mattered IF you, among other things, were meeting that goal, and when everyone had said that IF you are meeting your goal it's not a problem--supports the conclusion that you ARE part of the more extreme anti sugar sorts. Clearly if someone tries and cannot meet their limit then they should figure out what's going on and look at whether there's some reason they are overeating despite knowing what they should eat.
I am strongly in favor of understanding yourself, your diet, and why you eat as you do, as well as where your excess calories are coming from, as I think everyone here is. What bothers me is that all of you who focus first and only on sugar seem to have decided that sugar is a problem for everyone and to want to transfer your own prior issues onto the rest of us. If I had approached my diet by cutting sugar, I wouldn't have lost weight as well as I did, because most of my excess calories weren't related to sweet foods. (Neither do I have a problem or lack of self-control with carbs, as is also commonly asserted as some truth that must apply to everyone.)
+1
You responded to this beautifully; I have nothing else to add. I just hope it gets read by the ones who need to read it most.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »
Let me first reiterate what I said - that long term AND excess refined sugar intake can cause medical issues (NOT that any refined sugar intake at all is a problem). The link you provided proves that point. From that very link:stevencloser wrote: »
And excess and long-term refined sugar intake.ihatetodietalways wrote: »Diabetes Epidemic & You, by Dr. J.R. Kraft. He is a renowned doctor in Chicago and he publishes the fact that fasting glucose can miss 20% of diabetics. Yes. He has looked at 15,000 people from age 3-90. There is a lot of information in this book.
And there are TONS of papers about low carb diets. Phinney, Volek, Pulmetter, Noakes, Attia, and others are leading the research.
Stop telling people to eat sugars and instead tell them, go check your fasting insulin with a simple blood test at the doctor. Furthermore, since insulin resistance is a true phenomenon (it is observed before pre-diabetes), we may want to give our pancreas a break and take the carbs slowly. I don't vilify sugar and carbs. There are people who chose to limit them. That is all.
You are equating people with a medical reason for reducing carbs with people who have normal pancreatic function (the majority of the population). They are not the same. Too many carbs does not cause insulin resistance, diabetes, etc. The inability to properly regulate blood glucose is the main SYMPTOM of those medical issues. The causes are many and include:- genetics
- excess weight
- age
- long term use of certain medications, including statins and antidepressants
Nope.
http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/myths/
Note, that says sugar-sweetened beverages should be avoided to PREVENT diabetes, not simply to manage one's existing diabetes.The American Diabetes Association recommends that people should avoid intake of sugar-sweetened beverages to help prevent diabetes. Sugar-sweetened beverages include beverages like:
regular soda
fruit punch
fruit drinks
energy drinks
sports drinks
sweet tea
other sugary drinks
In fact, the ADA source you linked supports the idea that long term and (not or) excess refined sugar intake can cause diabetes. It supports the intake of sugars and desserts in moderated amounts as part of a balanced diet and specifically tells people to avoid drinks with high added sugar contents.
Have you read it? It specifically lists that sugar doesn't cause diabetes, just that consumption of sugar sweetened beverages in particular (no other food things, just drinks with sugar in it) is correlated with diabetes. A phrase whose underlying truth that can range from something like the connection betweeen the amount of people swimming and ice cream sales being correlated to possible causation.
I'd be willing to bet that the correlation with sugar-sweetened beverages stems from the fact that many people get all of their hydration from sodas or juice. There are indeed people who do not drink any water, and those people probably drink a lot of calories without realizing it, which adds to their overall calorie surplus leading to weight gain and to health effects like diabetes and heart disease.
Which is probably why some people can say "All I did was cut out sodas and lost 20 pounds!" If you eat at maintenance but drink 2 cans of Coke a day and an 8-oz glass of orange juice, that is nearly a 400-calorie surplus right there.
It's not the sugar in the sodas, it's the calories in them that people don't track. They really add up.0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »You ate a pound of cauliflower ?mamapeach910 wrote: »Yup. I routinely eat about that at times.
No gas either.
It was roasted with smoked paprika and utterly delicious. I was having a hungry day.
I actually wish I could. Unfortunately, cauliflower and broccoli both digest very slowly and quantities like that make my hiatal hernia act up. Last time was a half pound of steamed broccoli because I was hungry and I was rewarded with 2 hours of agony until the stomach slid back down where it belongs.
Oh, that does sound painful. You poor thing!
An unfortunate consequence of 1) Genetics (my Dad had one too), 2) Age, and 3) being overweight, especially apple shaped (which is going down significantly with 111 lb gone and only forty more to go)
I stepped away from this thread since last evening so I could remain the calm, rational person you all know and (maybe?) love. What I still don't get is 1) why so many still equate the symptoms with the cause, and 2) why the anti-sugar advocates assume that everyone is advocating eating sugar willy-nilly. You don't HAVE to eat ice cream or a big-brand candy bar, but you CAN unless you have a medical condition that requires you to stay away. Even those WITH medical conditions have a large variance in how they should eat. I am T2Dm and have reduced my total carbs to a maximum of 180 g per my diabetic educator's orders (comes out to 35% of a 2000 calorie diet, which is my TDEE- 500 calories). She has also said that there is no reason for me to track sugars, total carbs is the important number. I reduced my a1c to normal and got off the meds within 10 months of diagnosis by doing that. Within that 180 g is fruit, lots of veggies, bread (I prefer whole grain and yes, there is sugar in it), dairy, and occasional higher carb things like beer, donuts, cookies, chocolate, sugar in my tea, and last night's cake (yummy). I even ate a Kit-Kat a couple of weeks ago. No, I don't drink sugary drinks because I actually prefer the taste of diet sodas over regular. We are not advocating eating tons of sugar. We are saying that it is OK to eat some, where it fits in your preferred or doctor prescribed way of eating.
0 -
Lol at this thread. I'm new here and was fascinated to see a 9-page thread about sugar. Full confession: I have not read all nine pages.
As for sugar, I'm cutting out most "empty" sugar -- i.e., cookies, cake, and my personal downfall Snickers. Was this thread originally about fruit? I'm not cutting that out at all, except for watermelon which for some reason, sadly, upsets my stomach.
I'm also not worrying about added sugar in things like ketchup, or salad dressing, etc. At least not right now. I don't eat enough of it to worry about and if I'm having french fries then I'm having ketchup or else what's the point? lol.
Anyway, I belong to another message board community that has its own "touchy" subjects (religion and politics would be two biggies, although some of the most innocent things can derail quickly, lol), and it looks like sugar is one of those subjects here. I might read all nine pages, or I might not. lol
0 -
Monklady123 wrote: »Lol at this thread. I'm new here and was fascinated to see a 9-page thread about sugar. Full confession: I have not read all nine pages.
As for sugar, I'm cutting out most "empty" sugar -- i.e., cookies, cake, and my personal downfall Snickers. Was this thread originally about fruit? I'm not cutting that out at all, except for watermelon which for some reason, sadly, upsets my stomach.
I'm also not worrying about added sugar in things like ketchup, or salad dressing, etc. At least not right now. I don't eat enough of it to worry about and if I'm having french fries then I'm having ketchup or else what's the point? lol.
Anyway, I belong to another message board community that has its own "touchy" subjects (religion and politics would be two biggies, although some of the most innocent things can derail quickly, lol), and it looks like sugar is one of those subjects here. I might read all nine pages, or I might not. lol
did you call cake empty? and cookies .. and snickers?
why you make rabbit sad
0 -
Monklady123 wrote: »Lol at this thread. I'm new here and was fascinated to see a 9-page thread about sugar. Full confession: I have not read all nine pages.
As for sugar, I'm cutting out most "empty" sugar -- i.e., cookies, cake, and my personal downfall Snickers. Was this thread originally about fruit? I'm not cutting that out at all, except for watermelon which for some reason, sadly, upsets my stomach.
I'm also not worrying about added sugar in things like ketchup, or salad dressing, etc. At least not right now. I don't eat enough of it to worry about and if I'm having french fries then I'm having ketchup or else what's the point? lol.
Anyway, I belong to another message board community that has its own "touchy" subjects (religion and politics would be two biggies, although some of the most innocent things can derail quickly, lol), and it looks like sugar is one of those subjects here. I might read all nine pages, or I might not. lol
Perhaps if you're new here, you should go ahead and read the whole thing. You might learn something useful.
Also, just because the thread has gone on for 9 pages does not mean that people haven't been civil or having intelligent debate.0 -
but there have been no cat gifs
which mean it isn't truly succesful as a thread yet0
This discussion has been closed.
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
- 1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions