Say no to sugar
Options
Replies
-
lemonsnowdrop wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Sandcastles61 wrote: »am I right in thinking that pre-diabetes is a medical state that is a result of being overweight and that weight rather than sugar consumption is the major correlation here
(really do not know much about this so just interested)
from a quick google
"Prediabetes is when blood glucose levels are higher than normal but not high enough for a diagnosis of diabetes. Prediabetes means a person is at increased risk for developing type 2 diabetes, as well as for heart disease and stroke. Many people with prediabetes develop type 2 diabetes within 10 years.
However, modest weight loss and moderate physical activity can help people with prediabetes delay or prevent type 2 diabetes." from http://diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pubs/diagnosis/#2
and the NHS
"Type 2 diabetes causes are usually multifactorial - more than one diabetes cause is involved. Often, the most overwhelming factor is a family history of type 2 diabetes.
There are a variety of risk factors for type 2 diabetes, any or all of which increase the chances of developing the condition. These include:
Obesity
Living a sedentary lifestyle
Increasing age
Bad diet
Other type 2 diabetes causes such as pregnancy or illness can be type 2 diabetes risk factors."
so is it not weight that is the issue and not sugar consumption?
I usually love your advice rabbitjb, but my mom was far from overweight and diagnosed as prediabetic????? Which she has successfully managed by diet choices.... Although her mom(my grandmother) was full on diabetic. Just questioning?
Yeah ... I might be wrong as I said I don't know much about it and a quick scan on google does not an educated person make
It does say that the most overwhelming factor is family history
and I did read that sugar is not causative
I was just interested
Sugar may not be causative. Many studies have failed to prove it as a cause. Either it is not a cause, or it works so slowly that it's nearly impossible to prove anything other than correlation. But whatever the cause, once you are pre-diabetic or diabetic, sugar is a major factor in controlling the condition. And since the OP stated she does have the condition, I'm not sure why everyone is picking on her post.
Because she is inferring that in order to be healthy, all of us, even those not at risk for diabetes, need to give up sugar.
And at that, even diabetics don't need to give it up. They just need to control it, and eat it in combination with other macronutrients.
0 -
Shoot, I'm late to the dogpile. What's the zaniest thermodynamics law breaking statement so far?0
-
-
mamapeach910 wrote: »FitnessTim wrote: »Regarding the idea that sugar is linked to heart disease here's another link:
Journal of the American Medical Association
For full disclosure the study appears to focus on "added sugars".
While it is fair to say sugar can be part of a healthy diet, it is false to say that there is no evidence of links to obesity or other conditions. JAMA is saying there is a link, WHO is saying there is a link, AHA is saying there is a link.
Also another link from AJCN
Is having a little sugar sprinkled on your Sunday morning oatmeal going to kill you? Probably not. But having a can of sugar sweetened soda everyday is pushing it.
Nope, you've got it wrong. They are saying there's a link with EXCESS sugar.
It's a very important distinction.
You're also forgetting that EXCESS sugar consumption usually goes hand in hand with excess caloric consumption in general, which... leads to all those other conditions.
Confounding variables, you cannot get around them.
Aaaaand, we're back to being moderate. With sugar, AND with calories.
Well "EXCESS" implies more than one needs. While it may not be feasible, we don't need any sugar in our diet.
I did clarify that the study focused on "added sugars". I also included comments about the amount of sugar that is reasonable.
0 -
FitnessTim wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »FitnessTim wrote: »Regarding the idea that sugar is linked to heart disease here's another link:
Journal of the American Medical Association
For full disclosure the study appears to focus on "added sugars".
While it is fair to say sugar can be part of a healthy diet, it is false to say that there is no evidence of links to obesity or other conditions. JAMA is saying there is a link, WHO is saying there is a link, AHA is saying there is a link.
Also another link from AJCN
Is having a little sugar sprinkled on your Sunday morning oatmeal going to kill you? Probably not. But having a can of sugar sweetened soda everyday is pushing it.
Nope, you've got it wrong. They are saying there's a link with EXCESS sugar.
It's a very important distinction.
You're also forgetting that EXCESS sugar consumption usually goes hand in hand with excess caloric consumption in general, which... leads to all those other conditions.
Confounding variables, you cannot get around them.
Aaaaand, we're back to being moderate. With sugar, AND with calories.
Well "EXCESS" implies more than one needs. While it may not be feasible, we don't need any sugar in our diet.
I did clarify that the study focused on "added sugars". I also included comments about the amount of sugar that is reasonable.
ex·cess
ikˈses,ˈekses/
noun
1.
an amount of something that is more than necessary, permitted, or desirable.
PERMITTED OR DESIRABLE. Seriously, three donuts is a desirable amount to me.0 -
No, it implies more than is healthy. You can still healthily eat things you don't need.FitnessTim wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »FitnessTim wrote: »Regarding the idea that sugar is linked to heart disease here's another link:
Journal of the American Medical Association
For full disclosure the study appears to focus on "added sugars".
While it is fair to say sugar can be part of a healthy diet, it is false to say that there is no evidence of links to obesity or other conditions. JAMA is saying there is a link, WHO is saying there is a link, AHA is saying there is a link.
Also another link from AJCN
Is having a little sugar sprinkled on your Sunday morning oatmeal going to kill you? Probably not. But having a can of sugar sweetened soda everyday is pushing it.
Nope, you've got it wrong. They are saying there's a link with EXCESS sugar.
It's a very important distinction.
You're also forgetting that EXCESS sugar consumption usually goes hand in hand with excess caloric consumption in general, which... leads to all those other conditions.
Confounding variables, you cannot get around them.
Aaaaand, we're back to being moderate. With sugar, AND with calories.
Well "EXCESS" implies more than one needs. While it may not be feasible, we don't need any sugar in our diet.
I did clarify that the study focused on "added sugars". I also included comments about the amount of sugar that is reasonable.
0 -
FitnessTim wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »FitnessTim wrote: »Regarding the idea that sugar is linked to heart disease here's another link:
Journal of the American Medical Association
For full disclosure the study appears to focus on "added sugars".
While it is fair to say sugar can be part of a healthy diet, it is false to say that there is no evidence of links to obesity or other conditions. JAMA is saying there is a link, WHO is saying there is a link, AHA is saying there is a link.
Also another link from AJCN
Is having a little sugar sprinkled on your Sunday morning oatmeal going to kill you? Probably not. But having a can of sugar sweetened soda everyday is pushing it.
Nope, you've got it wrong. They are saying there's a link with EXCESS sugar.
It's a very important distinction.
You're also forgetting that EXCESS sugar consumption usually goes hand in hand with excess caloric consumption in general, which... leads to all those other conditions.
Confounding variables, you cannot get around them.
Aaaaand, we're back to being moderate. With sugar, AND with calories.
Well "EXCESS" implies more than one needs. While it may not be feasible, we don't need any sugar in our diet.
I did clarify that the study focused on "added sugars". I also included comments about the amount of sugar that is reasonable.
Sorry, you're moving goalposts. The study you posted was quite clear in percentage of total calories where the correlations began to occur.
There's a threshold of acceptable intake, from any source because your body doesn't care frankly, where the correlation didn't appear.
0 -
FitnessTim wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »FitnessTim wrote: »Regarding the idea that sugar is linked to heart disease here's another link:
Journal of the American Medical Association
For full disclosure the study appears to focus on "added sugars".
While it is fair to say sugar can be part of a healthy diet, it is false to say that there is no evidence of links to obesity or other conditions. JAMA is saying there is a link, WHO is saying there is a link, AHA is saying there is a link.
Also another link from AJCN
Is having a little sugar sprinkled on your Sunday morning oatmeal going to kill you? Probably not. But having a can of sugar sweetened soda everyday is pushing it.
Nope, you've got it wrong. They are saying there's a link with EXCESS sugar.
It's a very important distinction.
You're also forgetting that EXCESS sugar consumption usually goes hand in hand with excess caloric consumption in general, which... leads to all those other conditions.
Confounding variables, you cannot get around them.
Aaaaand, we're back to being moderate. With sugar, AND with calories.
Well "EXCESS" implies more than one needs. While it may not be feasible, we don't need any sugar in our diet.
I did clarify that the study focused on "added sugars". I also included comments about the amount of sugar that is reasonable.
So now the goal posts have moved from actual excess sugar to any added sugar? I'll never understand this logic. And by "this logic," I mean "zero logic."0 -
Great job Chantell! I am a type 2 diabetic and was diagnosed 1.5 years ago! I was overweight but was told it had more to do with genetics than anything! But your right about changing your diet now as alot of people don't realize hidden sugars in simple things! Your on the right path and if it's alright I would like to add you!0
-
lemonsnowdrop wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Sandcastles61 wrote: »am I right in thinking that pre-diabetes is a medical state that is a result of being overweight and that weight rather than sugar consumption is the major correlation here
(really do not know much about this so just interested)
from a quick google
"Prediabetes is when blood glucose levels are higher than normal but not high enough for a diagnosis of diabetes. Prediabetes means a person is at increased risk for developing type 2 diabetes, as well as for heart disease and stroke. Many people with prediabetes develop type 2 diabetes within 10 years.
However, modest weight loss and moderate physical activity can help people with prediabetes delay or prevent type 2 diabetes." from http://diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pubs/diagnosis/#2
and the NHS
"Type 2 diabetes causes are usually multifactorial - more than one diabetes cause is involved. Often, the most overwhelming factor is a family history of type 2 diabetes.
There are a variety of risk factors for type 2 diabetes, any or all of which increase the chances of developing the condition. These include:
Obesity
Living a sedentary lifestyle
Increasing age
Bad diet
Other type 2 diabetes causes such as pregnancy or illness can be type 2 diabetes risk factors."
so is it not weight that is the issue and not sugar consumption?
I usually love your advice rabbitjb, but my mom was far from overweight and diagnosed as prediabetic????? Which she has successfully managed by diet choices.... Although her mom(my grandmother) was full on diabetic. Just questioning?
Yeah ... I might be wrong as I said I don't know much about it and a quick scan on google does not an educated person make
It does say that the most overwhelming factor is family history
and I did read that sugar is not causative
I was just interested
Sugar may not be causative. Many studies have failed to prove it as a cause. Either it is not a cause, or it works so slowly that it's nearly impossible to prove anything other than correlation. But whatever the cause, once you are pre-diabetic or diabetic, sugar is a major factor in controlling the condition. And since the OP stated she does have the condition, I'm not sure why everyone is picking on her post.
Because she is inferring that in order to be healthy, all of us, even those not at risk for diabetes, need to give up sugar.
I think you mean you are inferring. Though honestly, since she mentioned her medical condition why you would infer that meant anyone without the condition would also need to follow her doctor's advice is a mystery to me.-2 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemonsnowdrop wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Sandcastles61 wrote: »am I right in thinking that pre-diabetes is a medical state that is a result of being overweight and that weight rather than sugar consumption is the major correlation here
(really do not know much about this so just interested)
from a quick google
"Prediabetes is when blood glucose levels are higher than normal but not high enough for a diagnosis of diabetes. Prediabetes means a person is at increased risk for developing type 2 diabetes, as well as for heart disease and stroke. Many people with prediabetes develop type 2 diabetes within 10 years.
However, modest weight loss and moderate physical activity can help people with prediabetes delay or prevent type 2 diabetes." from http://diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pubs/diagnosis/#2
and the NHS
"Type 2 diabetes causes are usually multifactorial - more than one diabetes cause is involved. Often, the most overwhelming factor is a family history of type 2 diabetes.
There are a variety of risk factors for type 2 diabetes, any or all of which increase the chances of developing the condition. These include:
Obesity
Living a sedentary lifestyle
Increasing age
Bad diet
Other type 2 diabetes causes such as pregnancy or illness can be type 2 diabetes risk factors."
so is it not weight that is the issue and not sugar consumption?
I usually love your advice rabbitjb, but my mom was far from overweight and diagnosed as prediabetic????? Which she has successfully managed by diet choices.... Although her mom(my grandmother) was full on diabetic. Just questioning?
Yeah ... I might be wrong as I said I don't know much about it and a quick scan on google does not an educated person make
It does say that the most overwhelming factor is family history
and I did read that sugar is not causative
I was just interested
Sugar may not be causative. Many studies have failed to prove it as a cause. Either it is not a cause, or it works so slowly that it's nearly impossible to prove anything other than correlation. But whatever the cause, once you are pre-diabetic or diabetic, sugar is a major factor in controlling the condition. And since the OP stated she does have the condition, I'm not sure why everyone is picking on her post.
Because she is inferring that in order to be healthy, all of us, even those not at risk for diabetes, need to give up sugar.
I think you mean you are inferring. Though honestly, since she mentioned her medical condition why you would infer that meant anyone without the condition would also need to follow her doctor's advice is a mystery to me.
Sorry, I meant "implying." It's still early for me.0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Chantell1979 wrote: »Hi everyone......today, is a week from me not using sugar!! My Doctor told to stop drinking or eating sweets that contain sugar because I may end up to be a diabetic. So I have given up sugar folks. I feel alive and refreshed. From a week today...I haven't ate or drank any added sugars...only if in fruits or good carbs. My body feels amazing. No more sluggishness, I'm not tired or having the morning headaches. We can do it...lets get healthy. Feel free to share or add me. Thanks!!
What is a good carb??? Sighs.
Sugar is not bad. Sugar is not evil.
Glad you are following your doctor's advice and finding something that is working for you. I am disappointed that he/she didn't just advise you to reduce your calories since the most effective way to reduce your risk of diabetes is to maintain a normal body weight.
As for the marshmallows. I can't eat them anymore....and sometimes I really miss them.
True, however, many items with added sugar are not very nutritionally dense and have been a big contributor to people's weight issues. Eliminating foods with added sugar (without any other diet changes) will most likely result in weight loss for the majority of people.
Since most people have no clue about nutrition, telling the patient to simply eliminate foods with added sugars is probably the most effective way to communicate.
I don't need a doctor to dumb things down for me. And if most people have no clue about nutrition, educate them instead of misinforming them. Unacceptable.
Yeah, good post. I kind of understand where doctors are coming from on this, since I'm sure many patients lie and are frustrating to deal with, but ever since I read Andrew Weil saying he recommended a vegetarian diet since meat in moderation was okay but he assumed everyone would cheat and similarly read about numerous doctors recommending 1200 calorie diets or not taking exercise into account since they basically assumed people were wrong about their calories it has frustrated me. Many people perhaps benefit from this approach, but as someone who does track very carefully and who takes a promise to eat no meat (or no whatever) completely seriously, the idea that I will not follow rigidly and can't be trusted would turn me off of a doctor immediately, as it feels so condescending. I want accuracy and the respect to believe that I will choose to do the right thing without being lied to.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
I'm down 111 pounds on sugar. I guess it also looks like 111 pounds. Maybe sugar isn't the actual issue.GaleHawkins wrote: »
Chantell that is awesome and do not look back. I did it 8 months ago when in very poor health at age 63. In 30 days my pain level had dropped so much I no longer needed any meds to manage it. I am only down 25 pounds off of sugar but it looks more like a 50 pound lost. Plus I feel better than I have in 40 years.
So you mean if I'd quit sugar it would look like I am down 190, and not just 95? Darnit! (I probably wouldn't look good at only 30 lbs, but still, it's the principle of the thing.)0 -
lemonsnowdrop wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemonsnowdrop wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Sandcastles61 wrote: »am I right in thinking that pre-diabetes is a medical state that is a result of being overweight and that weight rather than sugar consumption is the major correlation here
(really do not know much about this so just interested)
from a quick google
"Prediabetes is when blood glucose levels are higher than normal but not high enough for a diagnosis of diabetes. Prediabetes means a person is at increased risk for developing type 2 diabetes, as well as for heart disease and stroke. Many people with prediabetes develop type 2 diabetes within 10 years.
However, modest weight loss and moderate physical activity can help people with prediabetes delay or prevent type 2 diabetes." from http://diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pubs/diagnosis/#2
and the NHS
"Type 2 diabetes causes are usually multifactorial - more than one diabetes cause is involved. Often, the most overwhelming factor is a family history of type 2 diabetes.
There are a variety of risk factors for type 2 diabetes, any or all of which increase the chances of developing the condition. These include:
Obesity
Living a sedentary lifestyle
Increasing age
Bad diet
Other type 2 diabetes causes such as pregnancy or illness can be type 2 diabetes risk factors."
so is it not weight that is the issue and not sugar consumption?
I usually love your advice rabbitjb, but my mom was far from overweight and diagnosed as prediabetic????? Which she has successfully managed by diet choices.... Although her mom(my grandmother) was full on diabetic. Just questioning?
Yeah ... I might be wrong as I said I don't know much about it and a quick scan on google does not an educated person make
It does say that the most overwhelming factor is family history
and I did read that sugar is not causative
I was just interested
Sugar may not be causative. Many studies have failed to prove it as a cause. Either it is not a cause, or it works so slowly that it's nearly impossible to prove anything other than correlation. But whatever the cause, once you are pre-diabetic or diabetic, sugar is a major factor in controlling the condition. And since the OP stated she does have the condition, I'm not sure why everyone is picking on her post.
Because she is inferring that in order to be healthy, all of us, even those not at risk for diabetes, need to give up sugar.
I think you mean you are inferring. Though honestly, since she mentioned her medical condition why you would infer that meant anyone without the condition would also need to follow her doctor's advice is a mystery to me.
Sorry, I meant "implying." It's still early for me.
Grammar aside, it's not much different. You are inferring something, so you assume she is implying it.0 -
Chantell1979 wrote: »Hi everyone......today, is a week from me not using sugar!! My Doctor told to stop drinking or eating sweets that contain sugar because I may end up to be a diabetic. So I have given up sugar folks. I feel alive and refreshed. From a week today...I haven't ate or drank any added sugars...only if in fruits or good carbs. My body feels amazing. No more sluggishness, I'm not tired or having the morning headaches. We can do it...lets get healthy. Feel free to share or add me. Thanks!!
Congrats !
Hi ! I have been avoiding sugar for 18 days already, it is dificult but not impossible, we can do it !
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Chantell1979 wrote: »So I have given up sugar folks.
If you were eating/drinking it in excess and had health issues that would be negatively affected by it, good for you. I tend to think that doctors make these blanket recommendations if they think their patient can't moderate for some reason (or simply because they assume everyone cheats, which I find a negative approach and don't like), but it's certainly possible you have not successfully moderated in the past. Sounds like it's early days but that you are working on improving your health and enjoying your new plan. If you do start to struggle (and even if not) there's a great community of experienced T2 and pre-diabetic/former pre-diabetics on MFP who will likely have wise advice for you.My body feels amazing. No more sluggishness, I'm not tired or having the morning headaches. We can do it...lets get healthy. Feel free to share or add me. Thanks!!
I feel good too, I'm not sluggish (I ran 7 miles yesterday, plus spent extra time in the gym doing some cardio stuff), and I don't have morning headaches. I do seem to be woken up at a ridiculously early time so am tired, but I blame my cat, not sugar. I generally am not tired during the day. I think I'm pretty healthy too, and eat a good diet.
Are you saying I need to quit all sugar (fruit and dairy too?) to be healthy? Even though I eat it in moderation within an overall healthy diet?
This seems a rather harsh response, especially since the OP specifically said she was following her doctor's orders and giving up beverages with added sugar, and that she was still eating fruit and foods with sugar naturally in them.
Seriously? I thought it was quite positive about OP's changes but noted that there are others here with experience in living a lifestyle needed to address pre diabetes or diabetes, since often people think they have everything figured out after a week or two and find it gets more challenging.
I also thought it was fair to address the "say no to sugar" aspect of the post, which was aimed at everyone and seemed to presume--incorrectly--that we all should do what works for OP.0 -
is it anti sugar week or something? I swear this is like the tenth thread this week on this topic, and it is only Wednesday...
OP lets re hash...
I don't know what 'good carbs' are, can you please expand on that?
Sugar is not evil, and does not need to be avoided (unless you have a medical condition). You can eat sugar, be in a deficit, and lose weight.
Sugar does not cause diabetes....
Why is it ok to eat fruit sugar but not added sugar? Can you explain the distinction?0 -
lemonsnowdrop wrote: »FitnessTim wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »FitnessTim wrote: »Regarding the idea that sugar is linked to heart disease here's another link:
Journal of the American Medical Association
For full disclosure the study appears to focus on "added sugars".
While it is fair to say sugar can be part of a healthy diet, it is false to say that there is no evidence of links to obesity or other conditions. JAMA is saying there is a link, WHO is saying there is a link, AHA is saying there is a link.
Also another link from AJCN
Is having a little sugar sprinkled on your Sunday morning oatmeal going to kill you? Probably not. But having a can of sugar sweetened soda everyday is pushing it.
Nope, you've got it wrong. They are saying there's a link with EXCESS sugar.
It's a very important distinction.
You're also forgetting that EXCESS sugar consumption usually goes hand in hand with excess caloric consumption in general, which... leads to all those other conditions.
Confounding variables, you cannot get around them.
Aaaaand, we're back to being moderate. With sugar, AND with calories.
Well "EXCESS" implies more than one needs. While it may not be feasible, we don't need any sugar in our diet.
I did clarify that the study focused on "added sugars". I also included comments about the amount of sugar that is reasonable.
ex·cess
ikˈses,ˈekses/
noun
1.
an amount of something that is more than necessary, permitted, or desirable.
PERMITTED OR DESIRABLE. Seriously, three donuts is a desirable amount to me.
But is it desirable for you?0 -
I have no clue how lost pounds could look like double the lost pounds just because they were lost by cutting sugar. It's almost certainly a good thing that you don't look like you weigh 30 pounds, though. Sugar was a godsend in your case.lemurcat12 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
I'm down 111 pounds on sugar. I guess it also looks like 111 pounds. Maybe sugar isn't the actual issue.GaleHawkins wrote: »
Chantell that is awesome and do not look back. I did it 8 months ago when in very poor health at age 63. In 30 days my pain level had dropped so much I no longer needed any meds to manage it. I am only down 25 pounds off of sugar but it looks more like a 50 pound lost. Plus I feel better than I have in 40 years.
So you mean if I'd quit sugar it would look like I am down 190, and not just 95? Darnit! (I probably wouldn't look good at only 30 lbs, but still, it's the principle of the thing.)
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 394 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 946 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions