Sugar Cravings
Replies
-
caroldavison332 wrote: »77% of processed food contains sugar. Stop eating it. Chemically it makes your energy drop and secrete insulin which tells you body that you are hungry.
I've been on my diet for 3 weeks. Last Friday I had a chef salad with bacon, cheese and hard boiled eggs. It wasn't as good as the vegan salad (bitter greens, asparagus, beans, beets, jicima, kale salad, califlower, broccoli, mushrooms, onions, peanuts, sesame seeds) that I normally have at work.
MY TASTES CHANGED! SO CAN YOURS!
82.5734% of statistics are made up on the spot.0 -
mantium999 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
You don't think they'd say try the patch or the gum to deal with the cravings? Cold turkey or nothing? Seems pretty unlikely as a universal approach, doesn't it?DeguelloTex wrote: »
Dude, tell me how that was mocking or minimizing anything.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Can you point out some of the mocking and minimizing you've seen in this thread?stevencloser wrote: »UltimateRBF wrote: »
The reason so many people are overweight is they are eating too many calories of carbohydrates.WinoGelato wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »What can I do to help alleviate sugar cravings?
Hi, @Jefbro98.
Do you have a medical reason for avoiding sugar?
If not, did you know that sugar is a vital part of a healthy diet, so it's fine to eat it in moderation.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/added-sugar/art-20045328
The science says we do not need to eat sugar or any carbs for health. Protein and fats are essential nutrients. This fundamental understanding is important to help people combat the overpromotion of carbs by the food and nutrition industries and put them in the proper place and amount in diets built for health.
A majority of obese, overweight and even skinny people with metabolic illnesses are over eating carbohydrates, please do not undermine the accurate understanding of nutritional needs that will help them address their health issues.
Yes because a diet void of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains is obviously the healthiest possible diet.
There are many, many healthy carbs. If the OP wants to restrict added sugars from her diet (either permanently or forever) because she has difficulty moderating them, I have no issues with that, but I feel that extreme restriction of an entire macro group because someone has labeled carbs as junk is unnecessary and definitely not a straight pathway to health for any individual.
The bolded statement is true due to our overeating of a non-essental nutrient for a very large group of people with metabolic health issues.
It is fully possible to get all nutrients needed from a variety of meats and water.
To your body, carbohydrates are non-essential. Non-essential means you do not need to eat them to sustain your life. The reason so many so many of us are sick and overweight is we are eating HALF of our diet (or much more fore some) of a non essential nutrient that our many of our bodies cannot handle eating at that quantity.
No. The reason so many people are overweight is they are eating too many calories. Period. There are some people with medical conditions that may need to restrict carbohydrates, but that is not the majority of the population.
Reducing carbohydrates can be an effective tool to help achieve a calorie deficit, enabling people to lose weight and become healthier, but to advise that a diet of meat and water is better than a balanced diet of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, lean meat, dairy, and healthy fats is ludicrous.
In the last 4 decades in the US consumption went up by 200c pp per day and carb consumption percent of calories went up by 20%. Results equal diabesity epidemic. It follows that we also have a pre-diabetic epidemic also since it takes years or decades of inappropriate diet to create a diabetic. This is what happens when we elevate a non-essential macronutrient (carbs) to an unnatural level in our diets.
No one said meat and water was healthier except you. Don't misread.
Our health system is strictly oriented to treating identified sickness. It is pretty useless at stopping people from getting sick by diet, that is strictly the job of the individual.
I've only read this far in the thread, but do you have any sources for what appear to be these rather far fetched claims you keep making?
Because your statement you yourself bolded is blatantly false
Here is my farfetched source - http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5304a3.htm
I read the link...and yes...our carb intake has increased. I think however that you have to look beyond just the "carb" and ask yourself why...just why has our carb intake increased.
IMO...no scientific data to prove my point...one reason is that as food prices have risen people have had to adjust their food expenditure. Carbs on the whole are generally cheap...they go a long way...they are versatile...they are filling when combined with other foods. Pasta...rice...potatoes...bread...along with other carbs are inexpensive thus allowing a family to stretch their food budget.
In the Editorial section of the link that you posted...
"The increase in caloric intake described in this report is consistent with previously reported trends in dietary intake in the United States (7). USDA survey data for 1977--1996 suggest that factors contributing to the increase in energy intake in the United States include consumption of food away from home; increased energy consumption from salty snacks, soft drinks, and pizza (8); and increased portion sizes (9)."
There are other factors to consider...namely...eating outside the home and increased portion sizes. These two reasons would and do apply to any food group...fat/protein.
There has been more than once in my life that I have had little money to buy food. I stretched what I could buy with things such as pasta and potatoes. Someone telling me to cut my carbs at those times without knowing my circumstances would not have been helpful. I have gone from pasta/potatoes being a food item that I had every day to now about once a week...I have more options now.
Moral of this story...know your audience before you hand out advice. Life is much more complicated than just...don't eat carbs or sugar...IMO
I think we're on the same page as far as advice. The only time I open my mouth is when people come to the forums with concerns about how much sugar or carbs they consume and they get told to not fight the cravings or to not worry about eating carbs because of an anti- low carb agenda.
Low carb is a worthwhile dietary strategy and possibly even health saving for some people with no downside risks.
If people have a hunch they need to start addressing weight or health problems with sugar or carb reduction it is important to respect that concern.
You seem to have a pro low carb agenda then. And people are not saying to "not worry about eating carbs" in the way you're claiming.
The times when people are saying eating carbs is okay is when people come around saying carbs are literally poison or some cocaine-like addictive substance. Or when someone says you'll be totally healthy on meat and water alone.
I do not really care about carb arguments at all. My only focus is to get the anti-low carbers to stop mocking and minimizing newbies requests for help on limiting carbs and carb cravings.
ETA: You might also want to re-examine your premises. Again, the OP didn't ask about limiting carbs. You read that into the OP. But you don't really care about carb arguments at all. "Incongruent" comes to to mind.
Dude, it was you and someone else who jumped in right away to say 'eat what you are craving'.
Person A: "Man, I really want some cookies right now."
Me: "Can you fit those cookies in your calories for the day?"
umayster: "Stop mocking and minimizing."
But you don't have an agenda. Self-awareness is a thing.
Generally speaking, if someone is asking how to alleviate a craving, they are asking how to get through it without actually ingesting the substance. If someone asked how people alleviate nicotine cravings, I would hope people wouldn't just tell them to go have a cigarette (no, I am not saying sugar is addictive, I am comparing the language usage to illustrate a point that the meaning of alleviating cravings would be clear enough in that case, so it would be similarly clear in this case). And since the OP came back and even said that he's going to try to hold on and fight the cravings, it does not seem that fitting it into his diet is what he is looking to do here.
If the OP, in particular, doesn't want to fit the sugar into his diet, he doesn't have to. I'd said as much. That doesn't invalidate the idea that mindfully incorporating sugar, since it's not inherently bad, is a viable approach. Does it? I mean, if the OP said, "Yeah, I see that sugar can be part of a healthy diet. I'm going to try that" would it mean that elimination wouldn't be viable, even desirable, for someone else?
And, again, the mere statement that it is possible -- not required, but possible -- to incorporate sugar to deal with the cravings doesn't amount to mocking or minimization. Right? Agreed?
I edited the quoted post, which I know you didn't see, but just letting you know.
Yes, some people use the patch or gum, but the goal is to use that to help reduce and eliminate cigarette/nicotine use, not just replace it. I'm sure some people probably do replace it, but that's not what it was designed for, and it doesn't seem like it was the OP's intention from any of his posts in this thread to fit those foods into his diet.
I don't have issues with moderation, nor do I care if people share what works for them, but I'm also not sure why these arguments go on and on even after the OP has clarified their meaning. I don't think anyone's initial response was necessarily wrong, but I am surprised that people see so much ambiguity in a phrase when asking about sugar, when the intent would be perfectly clear if someone asked how to alleviate the craving for a cigarette.
Maybe because a craving for a cigarette is based on nicotine addiction (a substantiated addiction), while cravings for a particular food are not tied to a valid addiction? A person can fit foods they crave into a healthy diet and lifestyle, and often lack the knowledge that it is possible and how to do it. Ambiguity is caused by a common misunderstanding that sugar, independent of overall diet, is "bad" or "addictive". These arguments commence as an attempt to ensure understanding. As a former smoker, I doubt there is any way to fit a moderate amount of cigarettes into a healthy life. You are making a terrible comparison by linking the 2.DeguelloTex wrote: »Because sugar isn't nicotine. Because few people have a goal of smoking reasonably. Because people think that fat or sugar makes ones fat.
They go on and on because the OP probably isn't the only person who has the question and the answer that works for the OP might not be the answer that works for everyone. However, if the only answer that ever shows up is "stop eating sugar" then that's the only answer anyone will see, even if "eat sugar moderately as part of your larger goals" would be a better answer for someone else.
And because people come in and say it's mocking and minimizing to suggest working something into one's calorie goal when it clearly isn't mocking or minimizing anything.
I recognize that sugar is not nicotine, which is why I said that in my post, and I added in my edit to clarify that people experience cravings for cigarettes after the nicotine is out of their systems, and that those cravings would be similar to something experienced by someone trying to cut sweets/sugar - the craving is more related to the habit (eating sweets art night/smoking after a meal or while driving), or emotions/stress (eating sweets/smoking to deal), rather than an actual substance. But if someone asked for a way to alleviate that cigarette craving, the response wouldn't be to have a cigarette, it would be to work through it. I don't see why asking about any other craving a person does not want to give in to would be treated differently.
As stated in the quotes, the ambiguity here is due to people's beliefs about sugar, and it seems it's more about getting their position on that topic out there than actually helping the OP with his situation. I do not disagree that "stop eating sugar" should be the only answer to appear, however I think that "eat sugar in moderation" is not always the most appropriate answer either, particularly in cases where the person indicates they are trying to cut back. But I also don't particularly care why someone else chooses to do something in their life and their diet if it's not detrimental to their health and helps them get to their goal, so perhaps I don't take these types of posts as seriously as others.
Cutting back, as opposed to elimination, is moderation. So why would "eat it in moderation" not be the best advice to a person who indicates they wish to cut back?0 -
stevencloser wrote: »
That's not true. Many people figure stuff out before the science supports it. In fact, sometimes they study it because people are saying, "Hey, this is the case!"DeguelloTex wrote: »
I'm not dictating it. The standard, accepted framework of logic and debate dictate it. Putting forth the conclusion of addiction requires proof of that conclusion. It doesn't require being disproven. It's been that way since Socrates and before, however much you don't like it or are unaware of it.MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Uh, no. You don't get to dictate rules as to which assertions need to be backed up and which don't. Good try, though! That's very cute. LOL!DeguelloTex wrote: »
No, that's also not how it works. If one wants to assert an addiction, the burden of proof is to prove that that addiction exists, not shift the burden to someone else to prove it doesn't. The other person has nothing to disprove until the addition is proven.MoiAussi93 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
That's not how the burden of proof works.MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Where is your proof that sugar is not addictive?Reema_capricorn wrote: »I just read a book called Only fat people skip breakfast by Lee jagnoly and the only advice she doles out throughout the book is remove sugar from your diet and eat anything you want in moderation. You will experience withdrawal and also headaches if you are seriously addicted but if you are so desperate stick to dark chocolate
This book is just about selling you something in my opinion since the advice contradicts itself.
Eat everything in moderation, but not sugar....none of that. Don't eat sugar except dark chocolate which also has sugar in it.
And I hate to break it to this author, but while sugar may be psychologically or emotionally problematic, it is in no way physically addictive. Every person who says this, I want to take them to a detox unit and literally show them what physical addiction and withdrawal actually looks like.
Yes, it is. If you state something as fact, you should be able to back it up.
But, hey, congrats on veering this thread towards the recycle bin since that's the proven method of discourse here.
There have been threads here about Oral Allergy Syndrome. People who had it knew it was real. Allergists who heard lots of different people describe it knew it was real. They didn't say, "There is no science to support this, so it cannot be real! My patients just don't like strawberries!" A lot of lay people said that, though. "You just don't like them."
It got studied and studied and studied and studied some more. Finally, someone figured out it was related to proteins. And they gave it a name.
It was real before it had a name.
Logical people, when they hear others describing the same thing, think, "There might be something to this." That's logical. That's scientific.
Saying, "I can't google it! There is no study that says it's true, so it must be false!!" That is the illogical thing.
The thing is, they DID study it. They didn't just take it as fact just because people said it. That's the scientific way. They didn't go "It does exist!", wrote it in the medicine books and dared everyone to prove otherwise.
The doctors didn't study it. But they believed it. They believed it for many decades before anyone said, "Yup, we can scientifically prove that it's real."
It simply isn't logical to say, "If I can't google it, it doesn't exist! It's all in your head!"
That poster is suggesting that it isn't logical to believe something that hasn't been scientifically figured out yet. I'm saying it is logical and that many, many logical people believe things before the science has explained the Why.
It's very logical, when you hear a bunch of people describe the same thing, to think, "Might be something to it."
Logical people think that way. Scientifically-minded people REALLY think that way.
You don't have to believe it until there is proof, but you cannot deny it exists on the basis that there isn't an explanation yet. That really is not logical, in the truest sense of logic.0 -
caroldavison332 wrote: »77% of processed food contains sugar. Stop eating it. Chemically it makes your energy drop and secrete insulin which tells you body that you are hungry.
I've been on my diet for 3 weeks. Last Friday I had a chef salad with bacon, cheese and hard boiled eggs. It wasn't as good as the vegan salad (bitter greens, asparagus, beans, beets, jicima, kale salad, califlower, broccoli, mushrooms, onions, peanuts, sesame seeds) that I normally have at work.
MY TASTES CHANGED! SO CAN YOURS!
LOL,
Lost 121 pounds and now been maintaining for 11 months.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »caroldavison332 wrote: »77% of processed food contains sugar. Stop eating it. Chemically it makes your energy drop and secrete insulin which tells you body that you are hungry.
I've been on my diet for 3 weeks. Last Friday I had a chef salad with bacon, cheese and hard boiled eggs. It wasn't as good as the vegan salad (bitter greens, asparagus, beans, beets, jicima, kale salad, califlower, broccoli, mushrooms, onions, peanuts, sesame seeds) that I normally have at work.
MY TASTES CHANGED! SO CAN YOURS!
82.5734% of statistics are made up on the spot.
My statistics come from Dr Robert Lustig. Where did yours come from?0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »
It is helpful advice. Aspartame does cause sugar cravings in at least some people. So if you want to reduce cravings, eliminating or at least reducing aspartame could help.
No it doesn't!! I drink it most every day and never have issues. Most likely in people's heads.
What part of "in some people" did you not understand? Great, it doesn't cause cravings in you. But it does in me. Thus, the "in some people".0 -
LOL! Very cute coming from somebody who never backs up anything.
LOLMoiAussi93 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
I'm not dictating it. The standard, accepted framework of logic and debate dictate it. Putting forth the conclusion of addiction requires proof of that conclusion. It doesn't require being disproven. It's been that way since Socrates and before, however much you don't like it or are unaware of it.MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Uh, no. You don't get to dictate rules as to which assertions need to be backed up and which don't. Good try, though! That's very cute. LOL!DeguelloTex wrote: »
No, that's also not how it works. If one wants to assert an addiction, the burden of proof is to prove that that addiction exists, not shift the burden to someone else to prove it doesn't. The other person has nothing to disprove until the addition is proven.MoiAussi93 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
That's not how the burden of proof works.MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Where is your proof that sugar is not addictive?Reema_capricorn wrote: »I just read a book called Only fat people skip breakfast by Lee jagnoly and the only advice she doles out throughout the book is remove sugar from your diet and eat anything you want in moderation. You will experience withdrawal and also headaches if you are seriously addicted but if you are so desperate stick to dark chocolate
This book is just about selling you something in my opinion since the advice contradicts itself.
Eat everything in moderation, but not sugar....none of that. Don't eat sugar except dark chocolate which also has sugar in it.
And I hate to break it to this author, but while sugar may be psychologically or emotionally problematic, it is in no way physically addictive. Every person who says this, I want to take them to a detox unit and literally show them what physical addiction and withdrawal actually looks like.
Yes, it is. If you state something as fact, you should be able to back it up.
But, hey, congrats on veering this thread towards the recycle bin since that's the proven method of discourse here.
There are plenty of studies that say sugar is addictive. The problem is the people on this site won't accept any of them, and come up with ridiculous excuses why each is not valid. Even though I suspect the vast majority of the mfp users are not MD, PhD's who have worked in the field, they all think they are qualified to throw studies published in reputable medical journals in the trash and ridicule anyone who agrees with the findings based on their own experience. They claim as FACT that sugar is not addictive despite studies contradicting that assertion. Yet, you claim they have no burden to prove it isn't addictive.
Sorry, that flimsy faux-logic does not fly with me. You can say whatever you like, but if you claim it is fact and can't back it up I will call you on it.
Waiting for you back up what you say.
0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
I'm not dictating it. The standard, accepted framework of logic and debate dictate it. Putting forth the conclusion of addiction requires proof of that conclusion. It doesn't require being disproven. It's been that way since Socrates and before, however much you don't like it or are unaware of it.MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Uh, no. You don't get to dictate rules as to which assertions need to be backed up and which don't. Good try, though! That's very cute. LOL!DeguelloTex wrote: »
No, that's also not how it works. If one wants to assert an addiction, the burden of proof is to prove that that addiction exists, not shift the burden to someone else to prove it doesn't. The other person has nothing to disprove until the addition is proven.MoiAussi93 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
That's not how the burden of proof works.MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Where is your proof that sugar is not addictive?Reema_capricorn wrote: »I just read a book called Only fat people skip breakfast by Lee jagnoly and the only advice she doles out throughout the book is remove sugar from your diet and eat anything you want in moderation. You will experience withdrawal and also headaches if you are seriously addicted but if you are so desperate stick to dark chocolate
This book is just about selling you something in my opinion since the advice contradicts itself.
Eat everything in moderation, but not sugar....none of that. Don't eat sugar except dark chocolate which also has sugar in it.
And I hate to break it to this author, but while sugar may be psychologically or emotionally problematic, it is in no way physically addictive. Every person who says this, I want to take them to a detox unit and literally show them what physical addiction and withdrawal actually looks like.
Yes, it is. If you state something as fact, you should be able to back it up.
But, hey, congrats on veering this thread towards the recycle bin since that's the proven method of discourse here.
There are plenty of studies that say sugar is addictive. The problem is the people on this site won't accept any of them, and come up with ridiculous excuses why each is not valid. Even though I suspect the vast majority of the mfp users are not MD, PhD's who have worked in the field, they all think they are qualified to throw studies published in reputable medical journals in the trash and ridicule anyone who agrees with the findings based on their own experience. They claim as FACT that sugar is not addictive despite studies contradicting that assertion. Yet, you claim they have no burden to prove it isn't addictive.
Sorry, that flimsy faux-logic does not fly with me. You can say whatever you like, but if you claim it is fact and can't back it up I will call you on it.
In all fairness, its hard to fully trust rat studies. If there were any studies with human trials, it would be more plausible. And besides the eat patterns under which most of the rats showed addiction doesnt mirror that of the typical person....
There is a difference between what you wrote and when someone else writes "sugar is NOT addictive. It's all in people's heads. They just don't want to take personal responsibility. There is NO EVIDENCE for addiction. Woo"
What you wrote basically sounds like you are skeptical, but you acknowledge that it could at least be possible, or even if you highly doubt it you acknowledge that there is SOME science to support it at least to some degree.
Other people act like people who believe this are just morons who are pulling this idea out of thin air.
I believe it. You don't. But the reality is it has not yet been proven one way or the other and research in this area does continue.0 -
mantium999 wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
You don't think they'd say try the patch or the gum to deal with the cravings? Cold turkey or nothing? Seems pretty unlikely as a universal approach, doesn't it?DeguelloTex wrote: »
Dude, tell me how that was mocking or minimizing anything.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Can you point out some of the mocking and minimizing you've seen in this thread?stevencloser wrote: »UltimateRBF wrote: »
The reason so many people are overweight is they are eating too many calories of carbohydrates.WinoGelato wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »What can I do to help alleviate sugar cravings?
Hi, @Jefbro98.
Do you have a medical reason for avoiding sugar?
If not, did you know that sugar is a vital part of a healthy diet, so it's fine to eat it in moderation.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/added-sugar/art-20045328
The science says we do not need to eat sugar or any carbs for health. Protein and fats are essential nutrients. This fundamental understanding is important to help people combat the overpromotion of carbs by the food and nutrition industries and put them in the proper place and amount in diets built for health.
A majority of obese, overweight and even skinny people with metabolic illnesses are over eating carbohydrates, please do not undermine the accurate understanding of nutritional needs that will help them address their health issues.
Yes because a diet void of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains is obviously the healthiest possible diet.
There are many, many healthy carbs. If the OP wants to restrict added sugars from her diet (either permanently or forever) because she has difficulty moderating them, I have no issues with that, but I feel that extreme restriction of an entire macro group because someone has labeled carbs as junk is unnecessary and definitely not a straight pathway to health for any individual.
The bolded statement is true due to our overeating of a non-essental nutrient for a very large group of people with metabolic health issues.
It is fully possible to get all nutrients needed from a variety of meats and water.
To your body, carbohydrates are non-essential. Non-essential means you do not need to eat them to sustain your life. The reason so many so many of us are sick and overweight is we are eating HALF of our diet (or much more fore some) of a non essential nutrient that our many of our bodies cannot handle eating at that quantity.
No. The reason so many people are overweight is they are eating too many calories. Period. There are some people with medical conditions that may need to restrict carbohydrates, but that is not the majority of the population.
Reducing carbohydrates can be an effective tool to help achieve a calorie deficit, enabling people to lose weight and become healthier, but to advise that a diet of meat and water is better than a balanced diet of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, lean meat, dairy, and healthy fats is ludicrous.
In the last 4 decades in the US consumption went up by 200c pp per day and carb consumption percent of calories went up by 20%. Results equal diabesity epidemic. It follows that we also have a pre-diabetic epidemic also since it takes years or decades of inappropriate diet to create a diabetic. This is what happens when we elevate a non-essential macronutrient (carbs) to an unnatural level in our diets.
No one said meat and water was healthier except you. Don't misread.
Our health system is strictly oriented to treating identified sickness. It is pretty useless at stopping people from getting sick by diet, that is strictly the job of the individual.
I've only read this far in the thread, but do you have any sources for what appear to be these rather far fetched claims you keep making?
Because your statement you yourself bolded is blatantly false
Here is my farfetched source - http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5304a3.htm
I read the link...and yes...our carb intake has increased. I think however that you have to look beyond just the "carb" and ask yourself why...just why has our carb intake increased.
IMO...no scientific data to prove my point...one reason is that as food prices have risen people have had to adjust their food expenditure. Carbs on the whole are generally cheap...they go a long way...they are versatile...they are filling when combined with other foods. Pasta...rice...potatoes...bread...along with other carbs are inexpensive thus allowing a family to stretch their food budget.
In the Editorial section of the link that you posted...
"The increase in caloric intake described in this report is consistent with previously reported trends in dietary intake in the United States (7). USDA survey data for 1977--1996 suggest that factors contributing to the increase in energy intake in the United States include consumption of food away from home; increased energy consumption from salty snacks, soft drinks, and pizza (8); and increased portion sizes (9)."
There are other factors to consider...namely...eating outside the home and increased portion sizes. These two reasons would and do apply to any food group...fat/protein.
There has been more than once in my life that I have had little money to buy food. I stretched what I could buy with things such as pasta and potatoes. Someone telling me to cut my carbs at those times without knowing my circumstances would not have been helpful. I have gone from pasta/potatoes being a food item that I had every day to now about once a week...I have more options now.
Moral of this story...know your audience before you hand out advice. Life is much more complicated than just...don't eat carbs or sugar...IMO
I think we're on the same page as far as advice. The only time I open my mouth is when people come to the forums with concerns about how much sugar or carbs they consume and they get told to not fight the cravings or to not worry about eating carbs because of an anti- low carb agenda.
Low carb is a worthwhile dietary strategy and possibly even health saving for some people with no downside risks.
If people have a hunch they need to start addressing weight or health problems with sugar or carb reduction it is important to respect that concern.
You seem to have a pro low carb agenda then. And people are not saying to "not worry about eating carbs" in the way you're claiming.
The times when people are saying eating carbs is okay is when people come around saying carbs are literally poison or some cocaine-like addictive substance. Or when someone says you'll be totally healthy on meat and water alone.
I do not really care about carb arguments at all. My only focus is to get the anti-low carbers to stop mocking and minimizing newbies requests for help on limiting carbs and carb cravings.
ETA: You might also want to re-examine your premises. Again, the OP didn't ask about limiting carbs. You read that into the OP. But you don't really care about carb arguments at all. "Incongruent" comes to to mind.
Dude, it was you and someone else who jumped in right away to say 'eat what you are craving'.
Person A: "Man, I really want some cookies right now."
Me: "Can you fit those cookies in your calories for the day?"
umayster: "Stop mocking and minimizing."
But you don't have an agenda. Self-awareness is a thing.
Generally speaking, if someone is asking how to alleviate a craving, they are asking how to get through it without actually ingesting the substance. If someone asked how people alleviate nicotine cravings, I would hope people wouldn't just tell them to go have a cigarette (no, I am not saying sugar is addictive, I am comparing the language usage to illustrate a point that the meaning of alleviating cravings would be clear enough in that case, so it would be similarly clear in this case). And since the OP came back and even said that he's going to try to hold on and fight the cravings, it does not seem that fitting it into his diet is what he is looking to do here.
If the OP, in particular, doesn't want to fit the sugar into his diet, he doesn't have to. I'd said as much. That doesn't invalidate the idea that mindfully incorporating sugar, since it's not inherently bad, is a viable approach. Does it? I mean, if the OP said, "Yeah, I see that sugar can be part of a healthy diet. I'm going to try that" would it mean that elimination wouldn't be viable, even desirable, for someone else?
And, again, the mere statement that it is possible -- not required, but possible -- to incorporate sugar to deal with the cravings doesn't amount to mocking or minimization. Right? Agreed?
I edited the quoted post, which I know you didn't see, but just letting you know.
Yes, some people use the patch or gum, but the goal is to use that to help reduce and eliminate cigarette/nicotine use, not just replace it. I'm sure some people probably do replace it, but that's not what it was designed for, and it doesn't seem like it was the OP's intention from any of his posts in this thread to fit those foods into his diet.
I don't have issues with moderation, nor do I care if people share what works for them, but I'm also not sure why these arguments go on and on even after the OP has clarified their meaning. I don't think anyone's initial response was necessarily wrong, but I am surprised that people see so much ambiguity in a phrase when asking about sugar, when the intent would be perfectly clear if someone asked how to alleviate the craving for a cigarette.
Maybe because a craving for a cigarette is based on nicotine addiction (a substantiated addiction), while cravings for a particular food are not tied to a valid addiction? A person can fit foods they crave into a healthy diet and lifestyle, and often lack the knowledge that it is possible and how to do it. Ambiguity is caused by a common misunderstanding that sugar, independent of overall diet, is "bad" or "addictive". These arguments commence as an attempt to ensure understanding. As a former smoker, I doubt there is any way to fit a moderate amount of cigarettes into a healthy life. You are making a terrible comparison by linking the 2.DeguelloTex wrote: »Because sugar isn't nicotine. Because few people have a goal of smoking reasonably. Because people think that fat or sugar makes ones fat.
They go on and on because the OP probably isn't the only person who has the question and the answer that works for the OP might not be the answer that works for everyone. However, if the only answer that ever shows up is "stop eating sugar" then that's the only answer anyone will see, even if "eat sugar moderately as part of your larger goals" would be a better answer for someone else.
And because people come in and say it's mocking and minimizing to suggest working something into one's calorie goal when it clearly isn't mocking or minimizing anything.
I recognize that sugar is not nicotine, which is why I said that in my post, and I added in my edit to clarify that people experience cravings for cigarettes after the nicotine is out of their systems, and that those cravings would be similar to something experienced by someone trying to cut sweets/sugar - the craving is more related to the habit (eating sweets art night/smoking after a meal or while driving), or emotions/stress (eating sweets/smoking to deal), rather than an actual substance. But if someone asked for a way to alleviate that cigarette craving, the response wouldn't be to have a cigarette, it would be to work through it. I don't see why asking about any other craving a person does not want to give in to would be treated differently.
As stated in the quotes, the ambiguity here is due to people's beliefs about sugar, and it seems it's more about getting their position on that topic out there than actually helping the OP with his situation. I do not disagree that "stop eating sugar" should be the only answer to appear, however I think that "eat sugar in moderation" is not always the most appropriate answer either, particularly in cases where the person indicates they are trying to cut back. But I also don't particularly care why someone else chooses to do something in their life and their diet if it's not detrimental to their health and helps them get to their goal, so perhaps I don't take these types of posts as seriously as others.
Cutting back, as opposed to elimination, is moderation. So why would "eat it in moderation" not be the best advice to a person who indicates they wish to cut back?
I suppose it depends on how you define cutting back and moderation. It seems most of the responses here view moderation as "just fit it into your day if you want it," which is fine if you're someone who is good about portion sizes. The OP may have a problem with portion sizes, and is trying to cut back and moderate in terms of frequency - having a treat only on special occasions, for example. That's not elimination, but it's not moderation in the sense of "fit it in," either. Therefore, "just have some" isn't going to be very helpful to them when what they are trying to do is work through a craving to keep with their goal of cutting back on consumption frequency.
While I think moderation can be both portion size or frequency, I wouldn't really consider someone who only eats cake on special occasions to be "moderating" their intake. I don't eat fast food (McDonald's, Wendy's, Burger King, etc); that's not to say that if I were on a road trip that I wouldn't eat it, but it's not something I eat every day or even plan to work into my diet, so I don't consider the very rare circumstance when I would eat it to be moderation so much as, well, a very rare occurrence. Moderation (to me) seems to be foods you enjoy and want to have in your diet (for whatever reason), rather than just something that you might eat as a one-off and not feel any need to incorporate in your normal diet.0 -
Moderation is not the path everyone chooses. It's one way of handling things, but it's not the only way. It's not even the better way. It's just a different way.
I had craving issues at the beginning of my weight loss, took some advice on these forums. Yes I had some bad days, but I kept marching on and they got less and now I have no issues anymore. It's when I took that certain food item totally out of my diet that I always ended up binge on it. Moderation is the key word. It just takes time and you will have up and down days.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Dude, tell me how that was mocking or minimizing anything.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Can you point out some of the mocking and minimizing you've seen in this thread?stevencloser wrote: »UltimateRBF wrote: »
The reason so many people are overweight is they are eating too many calories of carbohydrates.WinoGelato wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »What can I do to help alleviate sugar cravings?
Hi, @Jefbro98.
Do you have a medical reason for avoiding sugar?
If not, did you know that sugar is a vital part of a healthy diet, so it's fine to eat it in moderation.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/added-sugar/art-20045328
The science says we do not need to eat sugar or any carbs for health. Protein and fats are essential nutrients. This fundamental understanding is important to help people combat the overpromotion of carbs by the food and nutrition industries and put them in the proper place and amount in diets built for health.
A majority of obese, overweight and even skinny people with metabolic illnesses are over eating carbohydrates, please do not undermine the accurate understanding of nutritional needs that will help them address their health issues.
Yes because a diet void of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains is obviously the healthiest possible diet.
There are many, many healthy carbs. If the OP wants to restrict added sugars from her diet (either permanently or forever) because she has difficulty moderating them, I have no issues with that, but I feel that extreme restriction of an entire macro group because someone has labeled carbs as junk is unnecessary and definitely not a straight pathway to health for any individual.
The bolded statement is true due to our overeating of a non-essental nutrient for a very large group of people with metabolic health issues.
It is fully possible to get all nutrients needed from a variety of meats and water.
To your body, carbohydrates are non-essential. Non-essential means you do not need to eat them to sustain your life. The reason so many so many of us are sick and overweight is we are eating HALF of our diet (or much more fore some) of a non essential nutrient that our many of our bodies cannot handle eating at that quantity.
No. The reason so many people are overweight is they are eating too many calories. Period. There are some people with medical conditions that may need to restrict carbohydrates, but that is not the majority of the population.
Reducing carbohydrates can be an effective tool to help achieve a calorie deficit, enabling people to lose weight and become healthier, but to advise that a diet of meat and water is better than a balanced diet of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, lean meat, dairy, and healthy fats is ludicrous.
In the last 4 decades in the US consumption went up by 200c pp per day and carb consumption percent of calories went up by 20%. Results equal diabesity epidemic. It follows that we also have a pre-diabetic epidemic also since it takes years or decades of inappropriate diet to create a diabetic. This is what happens when we elevate a non-essential macronutrient (carbs) to an unnatural level in our diets.
No one said meat and water was healthier except you. Don't misread.
Our health system is strictly oriented to treating identified sickness. It is pretty useless at stopping people from getting sick by diet, that is strictly the job of the individual.
I've only read this far in the thread, but do you have any sources for what appear to be these rather far fetched claims you keep making?
Because your statement you yourself bolded is blatantly false
Here is my farfetched source - http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5304a3.htm
I read the link...and yes...our carb intake has increased. I think however that you have to look beyond just the "carb" and ask yourself why...just why has our carb intake increased.
IMO...no scientific data to prove my point...one reason is that as food prices have risen people have had to adjust their food expenditure. Carbs on the whole are generally cheap...they go a long way...they are versatile...they are filling when combined with other foods. Pasta...rice...potatoes...bread...along with other carbs are inexpensive thus allowing a family to stretch their food budget.
In the Editorial section of the link that you posted...
"The increase in caloric intake described in this report is consistent with previously reported trends in dietary intake in the United States (7). USDA survey data for 1977--1996 suggest that factors contributing to the increase in energy intake in the United States include consumption of food away from home; increased energy consumption from salty snacks, soft drinks, and pizza (8); and increased portion sizes (9)."
There are other factors to consider...namely...eating outside the home and increased portion sizes. These two reasons would and do apply to any food group...fat/protein.
There has been more than once in my life that I have had little money to buy food. I stretched what I could buy with things such as pasta and potatoes. Someone telling me to cut my carbs at those times without knowing my circumstances would not have been helpful. I have gone from pasta/potatoes being a food item that I had every day to now about once a week...I have more options now.
Moral of this story...know your audience before you hand out advice. Life is much more complicated than just...don't eat carbs or sugar...IMO
I think we're on the same page as far as advice. The only time I open my mouth is when people come to the forums with concerns about how much sugar or carbs they consume and they get told to not fight the cravings or to not worry about eating carbs because of an anti- low carb agenda.
Low carb is a worthwhile dietary strategy and possibly even health saving for some people with no downside risks.
If people have a hunch they need to start addressing weight or health problems with sugar or carb reduction it is important to respect that concern.
You seem to have a pro low carb agenda then. And people are not saying to "not worry about eating carbs" in the way you're claiming.
The times when people are saying eating carbs is okay is when people come around saying carbs are literally poison or some cocaine-like addictive substance. Or when someone says you'll be totally healthy on meat and water alone.
I do not really care about carb arguments at all. My only focus is to get the anti-low carbers to stop mocking and minimizing newbies requests for help on limiting carbs and carb cravings.
ETA: You might also want to re-examine your premises. Again, the OP didn't ask about limiting carbs. You read that into the OP. But you don't really care about carb arguments at all. "Incongruent" comes to to mind.
Dude, it was you and someone else who jumped in right away to say 'eat what you are craving'.
Person A: "Man, I really want some cookies right now."
Me: "Can you fit those cookies in your calories for the day?"
umayster: "Stop mocking and minimizing."
But you don't have an agenda. Self-awareness is a thing.
Generally speaking, if someone is asking how to alleviate a craving, they are asking how to get through it without actually ingesting the substance. If someone asked how people alleviate nicotine cravings, I would hope people wouldn't just tell them to go have a cigarette (no, I am not saying sugar is addictive, I am comparing the language usage to illustrate a point that the meaning of alleviating cravings would be clear enough in that case, so it would be similarly clear in this case). And since the OP came back and even said that he's going to try to hold on and fight the cravings, it does not seem that fitting it into his diet is what he is looking to do here.
Your binge issues aren't something that will happen to everyone.
It is possible to cut things from one's diet and not binge. Binging is not a foregone conclusion.
Some people cut things out and do just fine. It's hard at first, but then gets easier and eventually isn't even a thing. There is no, "I must eat some ice cream OR ELSE." We just don't eat ice cream. It's not a big deal.
Also, we aren't sad. We don't cry. We don't feel our lives have lost all meaning without chocolate and ice cream.
It's a different way of going about it, but it works every bit as well.
Nope. Because in today's society no one takes responsibility for one's self, it's everything/person fault. Never themselves.
How does making a choice to eliminate something from your diet indicative of not accepting responsibility and blaming someone else?
It doesn't. To me it is taking responsibility and doing what is necessary to fix the issue.0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Moderation is not the path everyone chooses. It's one way of handling things, but it's not the only way. It's not even the better way. It's just a different way.
I had craving issues at the beginning of my weight loss, took some advice on these forums. Yes I had some bad days, but I kept marching on and they got less and now I have no issues anymore. It's when I took that certain food item totally out of my diet that I always ended up binge on it. Moderation is the key word. It just takes time and you will have up and down days.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Dude, tell me how that was mocking or minimizing anything.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Can you point out some of the mocking and minimizing you've seen in this thread?stevencloser wrote: »UltimateRBF wrote: »
The reason so many people are overweight is they are eating too many calories of carbohydrates.WinoGelato wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »What can I do to help alleviate sugar cravings?
Hi, @Jefbro98.
Do you have a medical reason for avoiding sugar?
If not, did you know that sugar is a vital part of a healthy diet, so it's fine to eat it in moderation.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/added-sugar/art-20045328
The science says we do not need to eat sugar or any carbs for health. Protein and fats are essential nutrients. This fundamental understanding is important to help people combat the overpromotion of carbs by the food and nutrition industries and put them in the proper place and amount in diets built for health.
A majority of obese, overweight and even skinny people with metabolic illnesses are over eating carbohydrates, please do not undermine the accurate understanding of nutritional needs that will help them address their health issues.
Yes because a diet void of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains is obviously the healthiest possible diet.
There are many, many healthy carbs. If the OP wants to restrict added sugars from her diet (either permanently or forever) because she has difficulty moderating them, I have no issues with that, but I feel that extreme restriction of an entire macro group because someone has labeled carbs as junk is unnecessary and definitely not a straight pathway to health for any individual.
The bolded statement is true due to our overeating of a non-essental nutrient for a very large group of people with metabolic health issues.
It is fully possible to get all nutrients needed from a variety of meats and water.
To your body, carbohydrates are non-essential. Non-essential means you do not need to eat them to sustain your life. The reason so many so many of us are sick and overweight is we are eating HALF of our diet (or much more fore some) of a non essential nutrient that our many of our bodies cannot handle eating at that quantity.
No. The reason so many people are overweight is they are eating too many calories. Period. There are some people with medical conditions that may need to restrict carbohydrates, but that is not the majority of the population.
Reducing carbohydrates can be an effective tool to help achieve a calorie deficit, enabling people to lose weight and become healthier, but to advise that a diet of meat and water is better than a balanced diet of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, lean meat, dairy, and healthy fats is ludicrous.
In the last 4 decades in the US consumption went up by 200c pp per day and carb consumption percent of calories went up by 20%. Results equal diabesity epidemic. It follows that we also have a pre-diabetic epidemic also since it takes years or decades of inappropriate diet to create a diabetic. This is what happens when we elevate a non-essential macronutrient (carbs) to an unnatural level in our diets.
No one said meat and water was healthier except you. Don't misread.
Our health system is strictly oriented to treating identified sickness. It is pretty useless at stopping people from getting sick by diet, that is strictly the job of the individual.
I've only read this far in the thread, but do you have any sources for what appear to be these rather far fetched claims you keep making?
Because your statement you yourself bolded is blatantly false
Here is my farfetched source - http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5304a3.htm
I read the link...and yes...our carb intake has increased. I think however that you have to look beyond just the "carb" and ask yourself why...just why has our carb intake increased.
IMO...no scientific data to prove my point...one reason is that as food prices have risen people have had to adjust their food expenditure. Carbs on the whole are generally cheap...they go a long way...they are versatile...they are filling when combined with other foods. Pasta...rice...potatoes...bread...along with other carbs are inexpensive thus allowing a family to stretch their food budget.
In the Editorial section of the link that you posted...
"The increase in caloric intake described in this report is consistent with previously reported trends in dietary intake in the United States (7). USDA survey data for 1977--1996 suggest that factors contributing to the increase in energy intake in the United States include consumption of food away from home; increased energy consumption from salty snacks, soft drinks, and pizza (8); and increased portion sizes (9)."
There are other factors to consider...namely...eating outside the home and increased portion sizes. These two reasons would and do apply to any food group...fat/protein.
There has been more than once in my life that I have had little money to buy food. I stretched what I could buy with things such as pasta and potatoes. Someone telling me to cut my carbs at those times without knowing my circumstances would not have been helpful. I have gone from pasta/potatoes being a food item that I had every day to now about once a week...I have more options now.
Moral of this story...know your audience before you hand out advice. Life is much more complicated than just...don't eat carbs or sugar...IMO
I think we're on the same page as far as advice. The only time I open my mouth is when people come to the forums with concerns about how much sugar or carbs they consume and they get told to not fight the cravings or to not worry about eating carbs because of an anti- low carb agenda.
Low carb is a worthwhile dietary strategy and possibly even health saving for some people with no downside risks.
If people have a hunch they need to start addressing weight or health problems with sugar or carb reduction it is important to respect that concern.
You seem to have a pro low carb agenda then. And people are not saying to "not worry about eating carbs" in the way you're claiming.
The times when people are saying eating carbs is okay is when people come around saying carbs are literally poison or some cocaine-like addictive substance. Or when someone says you'll be totally healthy on meat and water alone.
I do not really care about carb arguments at all. My only focus is to get the anti-low carbers to stop mocking and minimizing newbies requests for help on limiting carbs and carb cravings.
ETA: You might also want to re-examine your premises. Again, the OP didn't ask about limiting carbs. You read that into the OP. But you don't really care about carb arguments at all. "Incongruent" comes to to mind.
Dude, it was you and someone else who jumped in right away to say 'eat what you are craving'.
Person A: "Man, I really want some cookies right now."
Me: "Can you fit those cookies in your calories for the day?"
umayster: "Stop mocking and minimizing."
But you don't have an agenda. Self-awareness is a thing.
Generally speaking, if someone is asking how to alleviate a craving, they are asking how to get through it without actually ingesting the substance. If someone asked how people alleviate nicotine cravings, I would hope people wouldn't just tell them to go have a cigarette (no, I am not saying sugar is addictive, I am comparing the language usage to illustrate a point that the meaning of alleviating cravings would be clear enough in that case, so it would be similarly clear in this case). And since the OP came back and even said that he's going to try to hold on and fight the cravings, it does not seem that fitting it into his diet is what he is looking to do here.
Your binge issues aren't something that will happen to everyone.
It is possible to cut things from one's diet and not binge. Binging is not a foregone conclusion.
Some people cut things out and do just fine. It's hard at first, but then gets easier and eventually isn't even a thing. There is no, "I must eat some ice cream OR ELSE." We just don't eat ice cream. It's not a big deal.
Also, we aren't sad. We don't cry. We don't feel our lives have lost all meaning without chocolate and ice cream.
It's a different way of going about it, but it works every bit as well.
Nope. Because in today's society no one takes responsibility for one's self, it's everything/person fault. Never themselves.
How does making a choice to eliminate something from your diet indicative of not accepting responsibility and blaming someone else?
It doesn't. To me it is taking responsibility and doing what is necessary to fix the issue.
I am always amazed when people think that their way is the only "right" way and that everyone else is "wrong".
I am not a "no sugar" nor a "low carb" person. I eat what I want...what I don't want...I don't eat. If I can be successful moderating a food...then I do. If I can't be...I eliminate. I do it my way...regardless if someone might think that is irresponsible or shifting the blame.
However I choose to do things I am not so egotistical as to think that it is "right" for anyone except for myself.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »
That's not true. Many people figure stuff out before the science supports it. In fact, sometimes they study it because people are saying, "Hey, this is the case!"DeguelloTex wrote: »
I'm not dictating it. The standard, accepted framework of logic and debate dictate it. Putting forth the conclusion of addiction requires proof of that conclusion. It doesn't require being disproven. It's been that way since Socrates and before, however much you don't like it or are unaware of it.MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Uh, no. You don't get to dictate rules as to which assertions need to be backed up and which don't. Good try, though! That's very cute. LOL!DeguelloTex wrote: »
No, that's also not how it works. If one wants to assert an addiction, the burden of proof is to prove that that addiction exists, not shift the burden to someone else to prove it doesn't. The other person has nothing to disprove until the addition is proven.MoiAussi93 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
That's not how the burden of proof works.MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Where is your proof that sugar is not addictive?Reema_capricorn wrote: »I just read a book called Only fat people skip breakfast by Lee jagnoly and the only advice she doles out throughout the book is remove sugar from your diet and eat anything you want in moderation. You will experience withdrawal and also headaches if you are seriously addicted but if you are so desperate stick to dark chocolate
This book is just about selling you something in my opinion since the advice contradicts itself.
Eat everything in moderation, but not sugar....none of that. Don't eat sugar except dark chocolate which also has sugar in it.
And I hate to break it to this author, but while sugar may be psychologically or emotionally problematic, it is in no way physically addictive. Every person who says this, I want to take them to a detox unit and literally show them what physical addiction and withdrawal actually looks like.
Yes, it is. If you state something as fact, you should be able to back it up.
But, hey, congrats on veering this thread towards the recycle bin since that's the proven method of discourse here.
There have been threads here about Oral Allergy Syndrome. People who had it knew it was real. Allergists who heard lots of different people describe it knew it was real. They didn't say, "There is no science to support this, so it cannot be real! My patients just don't like strawberries!" A lot of lay people said that, though. "You just don't like them."
It got studied and studied and studied and studied some more. Finally, someone figured out it was related to proteins. And they gave it a name.
It was real before it had a name.
Logical people, when they hear others describing the same thing, think, "There might be something to this." That's logical. That's scientific.
Saying, "I can't google it! There is no study that says it's true, so it must be false!!" That is the illogical thing.
The thing is, they DID study it. They didn't just take it as fact just because people said it. That's the scientific way. They didn't go "It does exist!", wrote it in the medicine books and dared everyone to prove otherwise.
The doctors didn't study it. But they believed it. They believed it for many decades before anyone said, "Yup, we can scientifically prove that it's real."
It simply isn't logical to say, "If I can't google it, it doesn't exist! It's all in your head!"
That poster is suggesting that it isn't logical to believe something that hasn't been scientifically figured out yet. I'm saying it is logical and that many, many logical people believe things before the science has explained the Why.
It's very logical, when you hear a bunch of people describe the same thing, to think, "Might be something to it."
Logical people think that way. Scientifically-minded people REALLY think that way.
You don't have to believe it until there is proof, but you cannot deny it exists on the basis that there isn't an explanation yet. That really is not logical, in the truest sense of logic.
The symptoms for that OAS aren't exactly something you can just imagine, it's got distinct physical symptoms happening within minutes of eating the food (according to my quick wiki search). Being unable to control yourself around food X on the other hand is something you should be more sceptical against when all you've got for it is someone's word.0 -
That's the thing. I've said it here and elsewhere. I'm going to put it in caps for emphasis:stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
That's not true. Many people figure stuff out before the science supports it. In fact, sometimes they study it because people are saying, "Hey, this is the case!"DeguelloTex wrote: »
I'm not dictating it. The standard, accepted framework of logic and debate dictate it. Putting forth the conclusion of addiction requires proof of that conclusion. It doesn't require being disproven. It's been that way since Socrates and before, however much you don't like it or are unaware of it.MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Uh, no. You don't get to dictate rules as to which assertions need to be backed up and which don't. Good try, though! That's very cute. LOL!DeguelloTex wrote: »
No, that's also not how it works. If one wants to assert an addiction, the burden of proof is to prove that that addiction exists, not shift the burden to someone else to prove it doesn't. The other person has nothing to disprove until the addition is proven.MoiAussi93 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
That's not how the burden of proof works.MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Where is your proof that sugar is not addictive?Reema_capricorn wrote: »I just read a book called Only fat people skip breakfast by Lee jagnoly and the only advice she doles out throughout the book is remove sugar from your diet and eat anything you want in moderation. You will experience withdrawal and also headaches if you are seriously addicted but if you are so desperate stick to dark chocolate
This book is just about selling you something in my opinion since the advice contradicts itself.
Eat everything in moderation, but not sugar....none of that. Don't eat sugar except dark chocolate which also has sugar in it.
And I hate to break it to this author, but while sugar may be psychologically or emotionally problematic, it is in no way physically addictive. Every person who says this, I want to take them to a detox unit and literally show them what physical addiction and withdrawal actually looks like.
Yes, it is. If you state something as fact, you should be able to back it up.
But, hey, congrats on veering this thread towards the recycle bin since that's the proven method of discourse here.
There have been threads here about Oral Allergy Syndrome. People who had it knew it was real. Allergists who heard lots of different people describe it knew it was real. They didn't say, "There is no science to support this, so it cannot be real! My patients just don't like strawberries!" A lot of lay people said that, though. "You just don't like them."
It got studied and studied and studied and studied some more. Finally, someone figured out it was related to proteins. And they gave it a name.
It was real before it had a name.
Logical people, when they hear others describing the same thing, think, "There might be something to this." That's logical. That's scientific.
Saying, "I can't google it! There is no study that says it's true, so it must be false!!" That is the illogical thing.
The thing is, they DID study it. They didn't just take it as fact just because people said it. That's the scientific way. They didn't go "It does exist!", wrote it in the medicine books and dared everyone to prove otherwise.
The doctors didn't study it. But they believed it. They believed it for many decades before anyone said, "Yup, we can scientifically prove that it's real."
It simply isn't logical to say, "If I can't google it, it doesn't exist! It's all in your head!"
That poster is suggesting that it isn't logical to believe something that hasn't been scientifically figured out yet. I'm saying it is logical and that many, many logical people believe things before the science has explained the Why.
It's very logical, when you hear a bunch of people describe the same thing, to think, "Might be something to it."
Logical people think that way. Scientifically-minded people REALLY think that way.
You don't have to believe it until there is proof, but you cannot deny it exists on the basis that there isn't an explanation yet. That really is not logical, in the truest sense of logic.
The symptoms for that OAS aren't exactly something you can just imagine, it's got distinct physical symptoms happening within minutes of eating the food (according to my quick wiki search). Being unable to control yourself around food X on the other hand is something you should be more sceptical against when all you've got for it is someone's word.
IT IS NOT AN ISSUE OF BEING UNABLE TO CONTROL MYSELF.
I can eat a little white pasta and not eat more. I have done that. But once I eat it, the cravings will not go away until I've slept.
More caps:
IT IS NOT AN ISSUE OF LIKING IT AND WANTING MORE.
There are things I like a whole lot more that - although I might want to eat more of them - I will not crave.
Also, many, many people - most people - did not believe that I couldn't eat fresh peaches, but could eat them in heavy syrup. The fact that Light Syrup was better than fresh, but worse than heavy syrup really sent them over the edge. So many people didn't believe me.
Some people still don't believe it exists. Here, they will google it, find it on google, and believe it exists. IRL, they just be all, "You can't eat fresh tomato because you're allergic to it, but you can eat it in spaghetti sauce. Uh-huh."
What's more, I got most of the foods that I developed allergies to back. I can eat most of them again. The science doesn't know why that happens. But that's real, too.0 -
Of course everyone who eliminates things won't binge. The people who insist that you must include all things in your diet OR ELSE are just wrong...and a little foolish, IMO. What works for one doesn't work for all. Duh.lemurcat12 wrote: »MakePeasNotWar wrote: »
Some people mean that they really want to eat something. Others mean the physical drive that cannot be shaken. You can usually suss out what they mean from context, although the OP is up for grabs and makes it hard to tell.stevencloser wrote: »
Since I went the elimination route instead the moderation route, I cannot give details on how moderation helps with cravings.DeguelloTex wrote: »
OP's request was "What can I do to help alleviate sugar cravings?"WinoGelato wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »What can I do to help alleviate sugar cravings?
Hi, @Jefbro98.
Do you have a medical reason for avoiding sugar?
If not, did you know that sugar is a vital part of a healthy diet, so it's fine to eat it in moderation.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/added-sugar/art-20045328
The science says we do not need to eat sugar or any carbs for health. Protein and fats are essential nutrients. This fundamental understanding is important to help people combat the overpromotion of carbs by the food and nutrition industries and put them in the proper place and amount in diets built for health.
A majority of obese, overweight and even skinny people with metabolic illnesses are over eating carbohydrates, please do not undermine the accurate understanding of nutritional needs that will help them address their health issues.
Yes because a diet void of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains is obviously the healthiest possible diet.
There are many, many healthy carbs. If the OP wants to restrict added sugars from her diet (either permanently or forever) because she has difficulty moderating them, I have no issues with that, but I feel that extreme restriction of an entire macro group because someone has labeled carbs as junk is unnecessary and definitely not a straight pathway to health for any individual.
The bolded statement is true due to our overeating of a non-essental nutrient for a very large group of people with metabolic health issues.
It is fully possible to get all nutrients needed from a variety of meats and water.
To your body, carbohydrates are non-essential. Non-essential means you do not need to eat them to sustain your life. The reason so many so many of us are sick and overweight is we are eating HALF of our diet (or much more fore some) of a non essential nutrient that our many of our bodies cannot handle eating at that quantity.
As Judge Milian from the People's Court would say....any proof of that statement other than your flapping gums???
People are overweight because they are eating too many calories. Not calories of carbohydrates. Calories. Period. Choosing low carb as your diet of choice doesn't mean you have to demonize a whole food group. I am glad the diet works for you, but it doesn't mean that it is the way everyone needs to meet, especially with people without any medical necessity to.
There are many many factors as to the increasing issue of obesity in the United States. It's too complicated for this thread and well, it's off topic.
I will gladly stop 'flapping my gums' as you so rudely put it when OP's with self identified sugar or carb control issues stop being told to eat carbs/sugars and don't worry about it.
It is very distressing to witness someone attempting to solve their issues being undermined instead of supported in their quest to improve their health.
Please point out in this thread where OP was told to eat carbs/sugar and don't worry about it. What people said was that reducing carbs can be a method of creating a calorie deficit but if the OP struggles with feelings of guilt when she falls off the no carb wagon, maybe she should look for ways to work some treats into a primarily nutrient dense diet.
I find it distressing when people promote unnecessary restriction of entire food groups or macros based on fallacious extrapolation of scientific/medical data.
Her goal is to lose 20 lbs to get back to her "ideal weight". Hardly a candidate for a sweeping restriction of a macro that can include nutrient dense foods in order to reach her goal. People were merely pointing out that there may be ways which would leave the OP feeling less restricted, stressed, etc.
I think you are confusing threads - OP here is male and 2 out of first 3 posts ignored OPs request and encouraged consumption.
It said nothing about not consuming. If you're going to accuse people of needing to read, you should try it first.
To be clear: what request of the OP did two of the first three posts "ignore"?
Is it your position that eating some sugar in the context of a diet containing enough protein and fat isn't possibly a way to alleviate sugar cravings?
I have great confidence that if solving the cravings by eating them was a valid solution to OP, that he would not be here asking for help.
It worked for me. Moderation was the key to get much of what I thought was cravings (before I knew any better) under control and handling a life long problem with binging.
Nobody has really bothered to give any details on it that could help the OP, so maybe you could elaborate on the process, what you did, how it helped with your cravings, etc.
What exactly is a craving anyway? Just really wanting to have a food? I got that under control as a side effect of really wanting to lose weight more than really wanting the food. Before I tried losing weight, when I felt like eating something, I just had it. Because why not, right?
When I started counting calories, the moderation of those foods came with it, choosing not to have it at times because of the calories and other times having it because it fit or I made it fit (or sometimes still just because).
When I'm out with friends and eating out I don't think too much of it, I just have the food, maybe estimating the amount it might have, but overall I'm like "Eh, at worst that sets me back 1-2 days, that's nothing." And it's not like I go eat out daily. Some people seem to have a problem in those situations which may contribute to failure/binges down the line.
Another thing is looking for lower cal alternatives. I could have some ice cream that's 200 kcal per serving, or another that's only 50. I could have soda, or diet, regular cheese or low fat, etc. That way I didn't even really have to reduce the amounts of most things I ate regularly.
All in all, I think the main reason why I've been successful is because I don't take these things too seriously. I don't beat myself up over going over my calories one day, or not perfectly hitting my macros or micros. I think this kind of attitude helps keep on track with all this, from hitting your goals to keeping your wants in check.
It's the extremely rare occasion that I indulge in restaurant food or sweets, but when I do, I eat whatever the heck I like best. If I'm going to eat something I really shouldn't, I'm going to enjoy it as much as possible!! (Well, if someone else is paying for it, I might go the cheaper route, but still.)
For me, a craving is like a mental preoccupation. It's kind of like
-Hey, that brownie looks good. We should eat it
- No, it doesn't fit in my calorie goals today
- but it would be really good.
- it would, but I need to use my calories for dinner
- what if we had the brownie for dinner
- that's stupid, let me get back to work. No brownie
- you seem upset. you should take a break. Maybe eat that brownie
- seriously, no brownie today. Maybe tomorrow
- ok, but it would be really good. Let's just eat it and then eat less tomorrow.
- are you going to let me work?
- yes. After the brownie. Then I'll leave you alone.
- I'm not eating the brownie beca-
- brownie
- because I am trying to red-
- brownie
- reduce my calories and lose we-
- brownie
- weight so I can be healthier
- browniebrowniebrowniebrownie
- oh, ffs, fine. We'll have the brownie. Happy?
- yes. *eats brownie*. Hey, those cookies look good. We should eat them.
- *cries*
(ok, maybe a bit of an exaggeration, but that's the general gist of it)
That's why, for me at least, It's easier to just avoid the food. No brownie = no brownie debate. More like:
-Hey, do we have any brownies?
-Nope
-Oh, okay.
That actually did make me laugh out loud. So many people have been there. I agree, it's very easy to resist what isn't in the house.
I can relate to this, but I never had sweets in the house much. I still got fat because I overate on all kinds of foods and I ate sweets at work. (I am not actually home all that much.)
I have zero control over whether there are sweets at work, so I had to figure out a way to deal with this that did not involve making them unavailable.
I kind of think most people will fail if it's all about things being unavailable, since everything is really easily available if you want it to be.
As it is, I have things that used to tempt me (like ice cream and cheese) available at home and eat them in moderation, because I've trained myself to have better habits.
I don't believe that everyone will binge if one eliminates things (bingeing is a specific issue that people who don't binge probably don't really understand, and shouldn't opine on, IMO). I do think it's hard to maintain an elimination strategy if one doesn't really have a reason for the elimination. That was my issue with paleo--I couldn't come up with any reason why I'd cut grains, let alone legumes, so it was impossible to justify. I feel the same way about sweets. I think I should eat them in moderation, so do, but see no reason why I would be healthier if I never ate them.
I do think it's easier to stick to an extreme diet if it's prescribed by a doctor and there are real health reasons for it.
It is true that some people will get in the car and go get their treats, but that's a whole other ball of wax and one that probably could be helped with some therapy. For most people, not having the items in the house is good enough. Not in house, can't eat it.
As I pointed out, this is often not true. I mostly used to snack on sweet stuff at work, not home. I keep more sweet stuff at home now than when I was getting fat. (I walk past the grocery store on my way home and frequently stop in there to buy a few additional vegetables or anything else I need, and back in the day if I wanted ice cream, that's when I'd get it--I didn't keep it at home, unlike now.)
That this is not just me can be illustrated by the numerous posts where people fret about office snacks being tempting or overeating at buffets or church events or what have you.
I agree that if having food at home is a temptation it's a good thing to control, but learning control even when one is unable to control access is still extremely important.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
Of course everyone who eliminates things won't binge. The people who insist that you must include all things in your diet OR ELSE are just wrong...and a little foolish, IMO. What works for one doesn't work for all. Duh.lemurcat12 wrote: »MakePeasNotWar wrote: »
Some people mean that they really want to eat something. Others mean the physical drive that cannot be shaken. You can usually suss out what they mean from context, although the OP is up for grabs and makes it hard to tell.stevencloser wrote: »
Since I went the elimination route instead the moderation route, I cannot give details on how moderation helps with cravings.DeguelloTex wrote: »
OP's request was "What can I do to help alleviate sugar cravings?"WinoGelato wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »What can I do to help alleviate sugar cravings?
Hi, @Jefbro98.
Do you have a medical reason for avoiding sugar?
If not, did you know that sugar is a vital part of a healthy diet, so it's fine to eat it in moderation.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/added-sugar/art-20045328
The science says we do not need to eat sugar or any carbs for health. Protein and fats are essential nutrients. This fundamental understanding is important to help people combat the overpromotion of carbs by the food and nutrition industries and put them in the proper place and amount in diets built for health.
A majority of obese, overweight and even skinny people with metabolic illnesses are over eating carbohydrates, please do not undermine the accurate understanding of nutritional needs that will help them address their health issues.
Yes because a diet void of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains is obviously the healthiest possible diet.
There are many, many healthy carbs. If the OP wants to restrict added sugars from her diet (either permanently or forever) because she has difficulty moderating them, I have no issues with that, but I feel that extreme restriction of an entire macro group because someone has labeled carbs as junk is unnecessary and definitely not a straight pathway to health for any individual.
The bolded statement is true due to our overeating of a non-essental nutrient for a very large group of people with metabolic health issues.
It is fully possible to get all nutrients needed from a variety of meats and water.
To your body, carbohydrates are non-essential. Non-essential means you do not need to eat them to sustain your life. The reason so many so many of us are sick and overweight is we are eating HALF of our diet (or much more fore some) of a non essential nutrient that our many of our bodies cannot handle eating at that quantity.
As Judge Milian from the People's Court would say....any proof of that statement other than your flapping gums???
People are overweight because they are eating too many calories. Not calories of carbohydrates. Calories. Period. Choosing low carb as your diet of choice doesn't mean you have to demonize a whole food group. I am glad the diet works for you, but it doesn't mean that it is the way everyone needs to meet, especially with people without any medical necessity to.
There are many many factors as to the increasing issue of obesity in the United States. It's too complicated for this thread and well, it's off topic.
I will gladly stop 'flapping my gums' as you so rudely put it when OP's with self identified sugar or carb control issues stop being told to eat carbs/sugars and don't worry about it.
It is very distressing to witness someone attempting to solve their issues being undermined instead of supported in their quest to improve their health.
Please point out in this thread where OP was told to eat carbs/sugar and don't worry about it. What people said was that reducing carbs can be a method of creating a calorie deficit but if the OP struggles with feelings of guilt when she falls off the no carb wagon, maybe she should look for ways to work some treats into a primarily nutrient dense diet.
I find it distressing when people promote unnecessary restriction of entire food groups or macros based on fallacious extrapolation of scientific/medical data.
Her goal is to lose 20 lbs to get back to her "ideal weight". Hardly a candidate for a sweeping restriction of a macro that can include nutrient dense foods in order to reach her goal. People were merely pointing out that there may be ways which would leave the OP feeling less restricted, stressed, etc.
I think you are confusing threads - OP here is male and 2 out of first 3 posts ignored OPs request and encouraged consumption.
It said nothing about not consuming. If you're going to accuse people of needing to read, you should try it first.
To be clear: what request of the OP did two of the first three posts "ignore"?
Is it your position that eating some sugar in the context of a diet containing enough protein and fat isn't possibly a way to alleviate sugar cravings?
I have great confidence that if solving the cravings by eating them was a valid solution to OP, that he would not be here asking for help.
It worked for me. Moderation was the key to get much of what I thought was cravings (before I knew any better) under control and handling a life long problem with binging.
Nobody has really bothered to give any details on it that could help the OP, so maybe you could elaborate on the process, what you did, how it helped with your cravings, etc.
What exactly is a craving anyway? Just really wanting to have a food? I got that under control as a side effect of really wanting to lose weight more than really wanting the food. Before I tried losing weight, when I felt like eating something, I just had it. Because why not, right?
When I started counting calories, the moderation of those foods came with it, choosing not to have it at times because of the calories and other times having it because it fit or I made it fit (or sometimes still just because).
When I'm out with friends and eating out I don't think too much of it, I just have the food, maybe estimating the amount it might have, but overall I'm like "Eh, at worst that sets me back 1-2 days, that's nothing." And it's not like I go eat out daily. Some people seem to have a problem in those situations which may contribute to failure/binges down the line.
Another thing is looking for lower cal alternatives. I could have some ice cream that's 200 kcal per serving, or another that's only 50. I could have soda, or diet, regular cheese or low fat, etc. That way I didn't even really have to reduce the amounts of most things I ate regularly.
All in all, I think the main reason why I've been successful is because I don't take these things too seriously. I don't beat myself up over going over my calories one day, or not perfectly hitting my macros or micros. I think this kind of attitude helps keep on track with all this, from hitting your goals to keeping your wants in check.
It's the extremely rare occasion that I indulge in restaurant food or sweets, but when I do, I eat whatever the heck I like best. If I'm going to eat something I really shouldn't, I'm going to enjoy it as much as possible!! (Well, if someone else is paying for it, I might go the cheaper route, but still.)
For me, a craving is like a mental preoccupation. It's kind of like
-Hey, that brownie looks good. We should eat it
- No, it doesn't fit in my calorie goals today
- but it would be really good.
- it would, but I need to use my calories for dinner
- what if we had the brownie for dinner
- that's stupid, let me get back to work. No brownie
- you seem upset. you should take a break. Maybe eat that brownie
- seriously, no brownie today. Maybe tomorrow
- ok, but it would be really good. Let's just eat it and then eat less tomorrow.
- are you going to let me work?
- yes. After the brownie. Then I'll leave you alone.
- I'm not eating the brownie beca-
- brownie
- because I am trying to red-
- brownie
- reduce my calories and lose we-
- brownie
- weight so I can be healthier
- browniebrowniebrowniebrownie
- oh, ffs, fine. We'll have the brownie. Happy?
- yes. *eats brownie*. Hey, those cookies look good. We should eat them.
- *cries*
(ok, maybe a bit of an exaggeration, but that's the general gist of it)
That's why, for me at least, It's easier to just avoid the food. No brownie = no brownie debate. More like:
-Hey, do we have any brownies?
-Nope
-Oh, okay.
That actually did make me laugh out loud. So many people have been there. I agree, it's very easy to resist what isn't in the house.
I can relate to this, but I never had sweets in the house much. I still got fat because I overate on all kinds of foods and I ate sweets at work. (I am not actually home all that much.)
I have zero control over whether there are sweets at work, so I had to figure out a way to deal with this that did not involve making them unavailable.
I kind of think most people will fail if it's all about things being unavailable, since everything is really easily available if you want it to be.
As it is, I have things that used to tempt me (like ice cream and cheese) available at home and eat them in moderation, because I've trained myself to have better habits.
I don't believe that everyone will binge if one eliminates things (bingeing is a specific issue that people who don't binge probably don't really understand, and shouldn't opine on, IMO). I do think it's hard to maintain an elimination strategy if one doesn't really have a reason for the elimination. That was my issue with paleo--I couldn't come up with any reason why I'd cut grains, let alone legumes, so it was impossible to justify. I feel the same way about sweets. I think I should eat them in moderation, so do, but see no reason why I would be healthier if I never ate them.
I do think it's easier to stick to an extreme diet if it's prescribed by a doctor and there are real health reasons for it.
It is true that some people will get in the car and go get their treats, but that's a whole other ball of wax and one that probably could be helped with some therapy. For most people, not having the items in the house is good enough. Not in house, can't eat it.
As I pointed out, this is often not true. I mostly used to snack on sweet stuff at work, not home. I keep more sweet stuff at home now than when I was getting fat. (I walk past the grocery store on my way home and frequently stop in there to buy a few additional vegetables or anything else I need, and back in the day if I wanted ice cream, that's when I'd get it--I didn't keep it at home, unlike now.)
That this is not just me can be illustrated by the numerous posts where people fret about office snacks being tempting or overeating at buffets or church events or what have you.
I agree that if having food at home is a temptation it's a good thing to control, but learning control even when one is unable to control access is still extremely important.
Agree.0 -
That's true. People will encounter foods outside the home and have to learn how to control themselves at those times, too.lemurcat12 wrote: »
Of course everyone who eliminates things won't binge. The people who insist that you must include all things in your diet OR ELSE are just wrong...and a little foolish, IMO. What works for one doesn't work for all. Duh.lemurcat12 wrote: »MakePeasNotWar wrote: »
Some people mean that they really want to eat something. Others mean the physical drive that cannot be shaken. You can usually suss out what they mean from context, although the OP is up for grabs and makes it hard to tell.stevencloser wrote: »
Since I went the elimination route instead the moderation route, I cannot give details on how moderation helps with cravings.DeguelloTex wrote: »
OP's request was "What can I do to help alleviate sugar cravings?"WinoGelato wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »What can I do to help alleviate sugar cravings?
Hi, @Jefbro98.
Do you have a medical reason for avoiding sugar?
If not, did you know that sugar is a vital part of a healthy diet, so it's fine to eat it in moderation.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/added-sugar/art-20045328
The science says we do not need to eat sugar or any carbs for health. Protein and fats are essential nutrients. This fundamental understanding is important to help people combat the overpromotion of carbs by the food and nutrition industries and put them in the proper place and amount in diets built for health.
A majority of obese, overweight and even skinny people with metabolic illnesses are over eating carbohydrates, please do not undermine the accurate understanding of nutritional needs that will help them address their health issues.
Yes because a diet void of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains is obviously the healthiest possible diet.
There are many, many healthy carbs. If the OP wants to restrict added sugars from her diet (either permanently or forever) because she has difficulty moderating them, I have no issues with that, but I feel that extreme restriction of an entire macro group because someone has labeled carbs as junk is unnecessary and definitely not a straight pathway to health for any individual.
The bolded statement is true due to our overeating of a non-essental nutrient for a very large group of people with metabolic health issues.
It is fully possible to get all nutrients needed from a variety of meats and water.
To your body, carbohydrates are non-essential. Non-essential means you do not need to eat them to sustain your life. The reason so many so many of us are sick and overweight is we are eating HALF of our diet (or much more fore some) of a non essential nutrient that our many of our bodies cannot handle eating at that quantity.
As Judge Milian from the People's Court would say....any proof of that statement other than your flapping gums???
People are overweight because they are eating too many calories. Not calories of carbohydrates. Calories. Period. Choosing low carb as your diet of choice doesn't mean you have to demonize a whole food group. I am glad the diet works for you, but it doesn't mean that it is the way everyone needs to meet, especially with people without any medical necessity to.
There are many many factors as to the increasing issue of obesity in the United States. It's too complicated for this thread and well, it's off topic.
I will gladly stop 'flapping my gums' as you so rudely put it when OP's with self identified sugar or carb control issues stop being told to eat carbs/sugars and don't worry about it.
It is very distressing to witness someone attempting to solve their issues being undermined instead of supported in their quest to improve their health.
Please point out in this thread where OP was told to eat carbs/sugar and don't worry about it. What people said was that reducing carbs can be a method of creating a calorie deficit but if the OP struggles with feelings of guilt when she falls off the no carb wagon, maybe she should look for ways to work some treats into a primarily nutrient dense diet.
I find it distressing when people promote unnecessary restriction of entire food groups or macros based on fallacious extrapolation of scientific/medical data.
Her goal is to lose 20 lbs to get back to her "ideal weight". Hardly a candidate for a sweeping restriction of a macro that can include nutrient dense foods in order to reach her goal. People were merely pointing out that there may be ways which would leave the OP feeling less restricted, stressed, etc.
I think you are confusing threads - OP here is male and 2 out of first 3 posts ignored OPs request and encouraged consumption.
It said nothing about not consuming. If you're going to accuse people of needing to read, you should try it first.
To be clear: what request of the OP did two of the first three posts "ignore"?
Is it your position that eating some sugar in the context of a diet containing enough protein and fat isn't possibly a way to alleviate sugar cravings?
I have great confidence that if solving the cravings by eating them was a valid solution to OP, that he would not be here asking for help.
It worked for me. Moderation was the key to get much of what I thought was cravings (before I knew any better) under control and handling a life long problem with binging.
Nobody has really bothered to give any details on it that could help the OP, so maybe you could elaborate on the process, what you did, how it helped with your cravings, etc.
What exactly is a craving anyway? Just really wanting to have a food? I got that under control as a side effect of really wanting to lose weight more than really wanting the food. Before I tried losing weight, when I felt like eating something, I just had it. Because why not, right?
When I started counting calories, the moderation of those foods came with it, choosing not to have it at times because of the calories and other times having it because it fit or I made it fit (or sometimes still just because).
When I'm out with friends and eating out I don't think too much of it, I just have the food, maybe estimating the amount it might have, but overall I'm like "Eh, at worst that sets me back 1-2 days, that's nothing." And it's not like I go eat out daily. Some people seem to have a problem in those situations which may contribute to failure/binges down the line.
Another thing is looking for lower cal alternatives. I could have some ice cream that's 200 kcal per serving, or another that's only 50. I could have soda, or diet, regular cheese or low fat, etc. That way I didn't even really have to reduce the amounts of most things I ate regularly.
All in all, I think the main reason why I've been successful is because I don't take these things too seriously. I don't beat myself up over going over my calories one day, or not perfectly hitting my macros or micros. I think this kind of attitude helps keep on track with all this, from hitting your goals to keeping your wants in check.
It's the extremely rare occasion that I indulge in restaurant food or sweets, but when I do, I eat whatever the heck I like best. If I'm going to eat something I really shouldn't, I'm going to enjoy it as much as possible!! (Well, if someone else is paying for it, I might go the cheaper route, but still.)
For me, a craving is like a mental preoccupation. It's kind of like
-Hey, that brownie looks good. We should eat it
- No, it doesn't fit in my calorie goals today
- but it would be really good.
- it would, but I need to use my calories for dinner
- what if we had the brownie for dinner
- that's stupid, let me get back to work. No brownie
- you seem upset. you should take a break. Maybe eat that brownie
- seriously, no brownie today. Maybe tomorrow
- ok, but it would be really good. Let's just eat it and then eat less tomorrow.
- are you going to let me work?
- yes. After the brownie. Then I'll leave you alone.
- I'm not eating the brownie beca-
- brownie
- because I am trying to red-
- brownie
- reduce my calories and lose we-
- brownie
- weight so I can be healthier
- browniebrowniebrowniebrownie
- oh, ffs, fine. We'll have the brownie. Happy?
- yes. *eats brownie*. Hey, those cookies look good. We should eat them.
- *cries*
(ok, maybe a bit of an exaggeration, but that's the general gist of it)
That's why, for me at least, It's easier to just avoid the food. No brownie = no brownie debate. More like:
-Hey, do we have any brownies?
-Nope
-Oh, okay.
That actually did make me laugh out loud. So many people have been there. I agree, it's very easy to resist what isn't in the house.
I can relate to this, but I never had sweets in the house much. I still got fat because I overate on all kinds of foods and I ate sweets at work. (I am not actually home all that much.)
I have zero control over whether there are sweets at work, so I had to figure out a way to deal with this that did not involve making them unavailable.
I kind of think most people will fail if it's all about things being unavailable, since everything is really easily available if you want it to be.
As it is, I have things that used to tempt me (like ice cream and cheese) available at home and eat them in moderation, because I've trained myself to have better habits.
I don't believe that everyone will binge if one eliminates things (bingeing is a specific issue that people who don't binge probably don't really understand, and shouldn't opine on, IMO). I do think it's hard to maintain an elimination strategy if one doesn't really have a reason for the elimination. That was my issue with paleo--I couldn't come up with any reason why I'd cut grains, let alone legumes, so it was impossible to justify. I feel the same way about sweets. I think I should eat them in moderation, so do, but see no reason why I would be healthier if I never ate them.
I do think it's easier to stick to an extreme diet if it's prescribed by a doctor and there are real health reasons for it.
It is true that some people will get in the car and go get their treats, but that's a whole other ball of wax and one that probably could be helped with some therapy. For most people, not having the items in the house is good enough. Not in house, can't eat it.
As I pointed out, this is often not true. I mostly used to snack on sweet stuff at work, not home. I keep more sweet stuff at home now than when I was getting fat. (I walk past the grocery store on my way home and frequently stop in there to buy a few additional vegetables or anything else I need, and back in the day if I wanted ice cream, that's when I'd get it--I didn't keep it at home, unlike now.)
That this is not just me can be illustrated by the numerous posts where people fret about office snacks being tempting or overeating at buffets or church events or what have you.
I agree that if having food at home is a temptation it's a good thing to control, but learning control even when one is unable to control access is still extremely important.
Good point.
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Dude, tell me how that was mocking or minimizing anything.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Can you point out some of the mocking and minimizing you've seen in this thread?stevencloser wrote: »UltimateRBF wrote: »
The reason so many people are overweight is they are eating too many calories of carbohydrates.WinoGelato wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »What can I do to help alleviate sugar cravings?
Hi, @Jefbro98.
Do you have a medical reason for avoiding sugar?
If not, did you know that sugar is a vital part of a healthy diet, so it's fine to eat it in moderation.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/added-sugar/art-20045328
The science says we do not need to eat sugar or any carbs for health. Protein and fats are essential nutrients. This fundamental understanding is important to help people combat the overpromotion of carbs by the food and nutrition industries and put them in the proper place and amount in diets built for health.
A majority of obese, overweight and even skinny people with metabolic illnesses are over eating carbohydrates, please do not undermine the accurate understanding of nutritional needs that will help them address their health issues.
Yes because a diet void of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains is obviously the healthiest possible diet.
There are many, many healthy carbs. If the OP wants to restrict added sugars from her diet (either permanently or forever) because she has difficulty moderating them, I have no issues with that, but I feel that extreme restriction of an entire macro group because someone has labeled carbs as junk is unnecessary and definitely not a straight pathway to health for any individual.
The bolded statement is true due to our overeating of a non-essental nutrient for a very large group of people with metabolic health issues.
It is fully possible to get all nutrients needed from a variety of meats and water.
To your body, carbohydrates are non-essential. Non-essential means you do not need to eat them to sustain your life. The reason so many so many of us are sick and overweight is we are eating HALF of our diet (or much more fore some) of a non essential nutrient that our many of our bodies cannot handle eating at that quantity.
No. The reason so many people are overweight is they are eating too many calories. Period. There are some people with medical conditions that may need to restrict carbohydrates, but that is not the majority of the population.
Reducing carbohydrates can be an effective tool to help achieve a calorie deficit, enabling people to lose weight and become healthier, but to advise that a diet of meat and water is better than a balanced diet of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, lean meat, dairy, and healthy fats is ludicrous.
In the last 4 decades in the US consumption went up by 200c pp per day and carb consumption percent of calories went up by 20%. Results equal diabesity epidemic. It follows that we also have a pre-diabetic epidemic also since it takes years or decades of inappropriate diet to create a diabetic. This is what happens when we elevate a non-essential macronutrient (carbs) to an unnatural level in our diets.
No one said meat and water was healthier except you. Don't misread.
Our health system is strictly oriented to treating identified sickness. It is pretty useless at stopping people from getting sick by diet, that is strictly the job of the individual.
I've only read this far in the thread, but do you have any sources for what appear to be these rather far fetched claims you keep making?
Because your statement you yourself bolded is blatantly false
Here is my farfetched source - http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5304a3.htm
I read the link...and yes...our carb intake has increased. I think however that you have to look beyond just the "carb" and ask yourself why...just why has our carb intake increased.
IMO...no scientific data to prove my point...one reason is that as food prices have risen people have had to adjust their food expenditure. Carbs on the whole are generally cheap...they go a long way...they are versatile...they are filling when combined with other foods. Pasta...rice...potatoes...bread...along with other carbs are inexpensive thus allowing a family to stretch their food budget.
In the Editorial section of the link that you posted...
"The increase in caloric intake described in this report is consistent with previously reported trends in dietary intake in the United States (7). USDA survey data for 1977--1996 suggest that factors contributing to the increase in energy intake in the United States include consumption of food away from home; increased energy consumption from salty snacks, soft drinks, and pizza (8); and increased portion sizes (9)."
There are other factors to consider...namely...eating outside the home and increased portion sizes. These two reasons would and do apply to any food group...fat/protein.
There has been more than once in my life that I have had little money to buy food. I stretched what I could buy with things such as pasta and potatoes. Someone telling me to cut my carbs at those times without knowing my circumstances would not have been helpful. I have gone from pasta/potatoes being a food item that I had every day to now about once a week...I have more options now.
Moral of this story...know your audience before you hand out advice. Life is much more complicated than just...don't eat carbs or sugar...IMO
I think we're on the same page as far as advice. The only time I open my mouth is when people come to the forums with concerns about how much sugar or carbs they consume and they get told to not fight the cravings or to not worry about eating carbs because of an anti- low carb agenda.
Low carb is a worthwhile dietary strategy and possibly even health saving for some people with no downside risks.
If people have a hunch they need to start addressing weight or health problems with sugar or carb reduction it is important to respect that concern.
You seem to have a pro low carb agenda then. And people are not saying to "not worry about eating carbs" in the way you're claiming.
The times when people are saying eating carbs is okay is when people come around saying carbs are literally poison or some cocaine-like addictive substance. Or when someone says you'll be totally healthy on meat and water alone.
I do not really care about carb arguments at all. My only focus is to get the anti-low carbers to stop mocking and minimizing newbies requests for help on limiting carbs and carb cravings.
ETA: You might also want to re-examine your premises. Again, the OP didn't ask about limiting carbs. You read that into the OP. But you don't really care about carb arguments at all. "Incongruent" comes to to mind.
Dude, it was you and someone else who jumped in right away to say 'eat what you are craving'.
Person A: "Man, I really want some cookies right now."
Me: "Can you fit those cookies in your calories for the day?"
umayster: "Stop mocking and minimizing."
But you don't have an agenda. Self-awareness is a thing.
Generally speaking, if someone is asking how to alleviate a craving, they are asking how to get through it without actually ingesting the substance. If someone asked how people alleviate nicotine cravings, I would hope people wouldn't just tell them to go have a cigarette (no, I am not saying sugar is addictive, I am comparing the language usage to illustrate a point that the meaning of alleviating cravings would be clear enough in that case, so it would be similarly clear in this case). And since the OP came back and even said that he's going to try to hold on and fight the cravings, it does not seem that fitting it into his diet is what he is looking to do here.
I don't think that's true with sugar cravings. Generally speaking, the person is concerned with wanting more of the food than they can eat within their weight loss plan, being bothered by wanting it at all (or many) times. Hearing "when I include a small amount of chocolate at a planned time I stop thinking about it at other times" (although that was not precisely my answer) does, indeed, seem responsive.
Nor do I agree that OP "clarified" his request as you state. He said: 'Seems like the general consensus here is just to hold on and fight the cravings. Well that's what I've been trying to do, and I'll keep fighting..."
In other words, contrary to the claims that he was just told to go eat sugar, OP seems to think that the advice he got was just keep fighting. That doesn't mean that's the only kind of advice he's interested in.
Anyway, I, like others, told him what worked for me, and I also indicated that more information would be helpful to provide a better answer, which would include his goals. Saying that's somehow disrespectful of OP's question or demonstrates a desire to argue with his goals is IMO false and rather offensive.
I find it strange that somehow the posts telling him to go low carb (when he did not mention an issue with carbs in general or a desire to go low carb) are considered helpful, but those telling him about personal experiences fighting sugar cravings that included some consumption of sugar are being criticized. This is especially strange in that OP did not say he wanted to eliminate all sugar.0 -
mantium999 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
You don't think they'd say try the patch or the gum to deal with the cravings? Cold turkey or nothing? Seems pretty unlikely as a universal approach, doesn't it?DeguelloTex wrote: »
Dude, tell me how that was mocking or minimizing anything.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Can you point out some of the mocking and minimizing you've seen in this thread?stevencloser wrote: »UltimateRBF wrote: »
The reason so many people are overweight is they are eating too many calories of carbohydrates.WinoGelato wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »What can I do to help alleviate sugar cravings?
Hi, @Jefbro98.
Do you have a medical reason for avoiding sugar?
If not, did you know that sugar is a vital part of a healthy diet, so it's fine to eat it in moderation.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/added-sugar/art-20045328
The science says we do not need to eat sugar or any carbs for health. Protein and fats are essential nutrients. This fundamental understanding is important to help people combat the overpromotion of carbs by the food and nutrition industries and put them in the proper place and amount in diets built for health.
A majority of obese, overweight and even skinny people with metabolic illnesses are over eating carbohydrates, please do not undermine the accurate understanding of nutritional needs that will help them address their health issues.
Yes because a diet void of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains is obviously the healthiest possible diet.
There are many, many healthy carbs. If the OP wants to restrict added sugars from her diet (either permanently or forever) because she has difficulty moderating them, I have no issues with that, but I feel that extreme restriction of an entire macro group because someone has labeled carbs as junk is unnecessary and definitely not a straight pathway to health for any individual.
The bolded statement is true due to our overeating of a non-essental nutrient for a very large group of people with metabolic health issues.
It is fully possible to get all nutrients needed from a variety of meats and water.
To your body, carbohydrates are non-essential. Non-essential means you do not need to eat them to sustain your life. The reason so many so many of us are sick and overweight is we are eating HALF of our diet (or much more fore some) of a non essential nutrient that our many of our bodies cannot handle eating at that quantity.
No. The reason so many people are overweight is they are eating too many calories. Period. There are some people with medical conditions that may need to restrict carbohydrates, but that is not the majority of the population.
Reducing carbohydrates can be an effective tool to help achieve a calorie deficit, enabling people to lose weight and become healthier, but to advise that a diet of meat and water is better than a balanced diet of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, lean meat, dairy, and healthy fats is ludicrous.
In the last 4 decades in the US consumption went up by 200c pp per day and carb consumption percent of calories went up by 20%. Results equal diabesity epidemic. It follows that we also have a pre-diabetic epidemic also since it takes years or decades of inappropriate diet to create a diabetic. This is what happens when we elevate a non-essential macronutrient (carbs) to an unnatural level in our diets.
No one said meat and water was healthier except you. Don't misread.
Our health system is strictly oriented to treating identified sickness. It is pretty useless at stopping people from getting sick by diet, that is strictly the job of the individual.
I've only read this far in the thread, but do you have any sources for what appear to be these rather far fetched claims you keep making?
Because your statement you yourself bolded is blatantly false
Here is my farfetched source - http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5304a3.htm
I read the link...and yes...our carb intake has increased. I think however that you have to look beyond just the "carb" and ask yourself why...just why has our carb intake increased.
IMO...no scientific data to prove my point...one reason is that as food prices have risen people have had to adjust their food expenditure. Carbs on the whole are generally cheap...they go a long way...they are versatile...they are filling when combined with other foods. Pasta...rice...potatoes...bread...along with other carbs are inexpensive thus allowing a family to stretch their food budget.
In the Editorial section of the link that you posted...
"The increase in caloric intake described in this report is consistent with previously reported trends in dietary intake in the United States (7). USDA survey data for 1977--1996 suggest that factors contributing to the increase in energy intake in the United States include consumption of food away from home; increased energy consumption from salty snacks, soft drinks, and pizza (8); and increased portion sizes (9)."
There are other factors to consider...namely...eating outside the home and increased portion sizes. These two reasons would and do apply to any food group...fat/protein.
There has been more than once in my life that I have had little money to buy food. I stretched what I could buy with things such as pasta and potatoes. Someone telling me to cut my carbs at those times without knowing my circumstances would not have been helpful. I have gone from pasta/potatoes being a food item that I had every day to now about once a week...I have more options now.
Moral of this story...know your audience before you hand out advice. Life is much more complicated than just...don't eat carbs or sugar...IMO
I think we're on the same page as far as advice. The only time I open my mouth is when people come to the forums with concerns about how much sugar or carbs they consume and they get told to not fight the cravings or to not worry about eating carbs because of an anti- low carb agenda.
Low carb is a worthwhile dietary strategy and possibly even health saving for some people with no downside risks.
If people have a hunch they need to start addressing weight or health problems with sugar or carb reduction it is important to respect that concern.
You seem to have a pro low carb agenda then. And people are not saying to "not worry about eating carbs" in the way you're claiming.
The times when people are saying eating carbs is okay is when people come around saying carbs are literally poison or some cocaine-like addictive substance. Or when someone says you'll be totally healthy on meat and water alone.
I do not really care about carb arguments at all. My only focus is to get the anti-low carbers to stop mocking and minimizing newbies requests for help on limiting carbs and carb cravings.
ETA: You might also want to re-examine your premises. Again, the OP didn't ask about limiting carbs. You read that into the OP. But you don't really care about carb arguments at all. "Incongruent" comes to to mind.
Dude, it was you and someone else who jumped in right away to say 'eat what you are craving'.
Person A: "Man, I really want some cookies right now."
Me: "Can you fit those cookies in your calories for the day?"
umayster: "Stop mocking and minimizing."
But you don't have an agenda. Self-awareness is a thing.
Generally speaking, if someone is asking how to alleviate a craving, they are asking how to get through it without actually ingesting the substance. If someone asked how people alleviate nicotine cravings, I would hope people wouldn't just tell them to go have a cigarette (no, I am not saying sugar is addictive, I am comparing the language usage to illustrate a point that the meaning of alleviating cravings would be clear enough in that case, so it would be similarly clear in this case). And since the OP came back and even said that he's going to try to hold on and fight the cravings, it does not seem that fitting it into his diet is what he is looking to do here.
If the OP, in particular, doesn't want to fit the sugar into his diet, he doesn't have to. I'd said as much. That doesn't invalidate the idea that mindfully incorporating sugar, since it's not inherently bad, is a viable approach. Does it? I mean, if the OP said, "Yeah, I see that sugar can be part of a healthy diet. I'm going to try that" would it mean that elimination wouldn't be viable, even desirable, for someone else?
And, again, the mere statement that it is possible -- not required, but possible -- to incorporate sugar to deal with the cravings doesn't amount to mocking or minimization. Right? Agreed?
I edited the quoted post, which I know you didn't see, but just letting you know.
Yes, some people use the patch or gum, but the goal is to use that to help reduce and eliminate cigarette/nicotine use, not just replace it. I'm sure some people probably do replace it, but that's not what it was designed for, and it doesn't seem like it was the OP's intention from any of his posts in this thread to fit those foods into his diet.
I don't have issues with moderation, nor do I care if people share what works for them, but I'm also not sure why these arguments go on and on even after the OP has clarified their meaning. I don't think anyone's initial response was necessarily wrong, but I am surprised that people see so much ambiguity in a phrase when asking about sugar, when the intent would be perfectly clear if someone asked how to alleviate the craving for a cigarette.
Maybe because a craving for a cigarette is based on nicotine addiction (a substantiated addiction), while cravings for a particular food are not tied to a valid addiction? A person can fit foods they crave into a healthy diet and lifestyle, and often lack the knowledge that it is possible and how to do it. Ambiguity is caused by a common misunderstanding that sugar, independent of overall diet, is "bad" or "addictive". These arguments commence as an attempt to ensure understanding. As a former smoker, I doubt there is any way to fit a moderate amount of cigarettes into a healthy life. You are making a terrible comparison by linking the 2.
This is exactly the problem.
"We don't believe you have a valid point of view, so we will not help you" is fine. Ignore the thread.
But the, "Eat sugar!" is done not to help the person, but to point out that you don't believe they have a valid point of view.
Please explain how my post--which discussed a strategy I use that includes eating some sugar within my diet regularly, in a moderate way--somehow indicates that OP does not have a valid POV.
I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting to eliminated added sugar (I do think there's something wrong with telling everyone that this is the only or most healthy approach, as I believe that's factually wrong). I do not see that OP said that he wanted to eliminate added sugar or would be uninterested in what I did.0 -
I find dark chocolate from lidl or aldi brilliant... Iv an.awful sweet tooth so I buy a bar of dark chocolate nd put it in d fridge.. Once every two days or wen I'm craving il have two squares... Dats enough to get rid of the craving and because it's in the fridge it's too hard to eat the whole bar in one sittingWhat can I do to help alleviate sugar cravings?
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
You realize that what you wrote has nothing to do with the burden of proving a proposition, right? The burden of proof has nothing to do with googling it or with the prevailing position being wrong. Einstein didn't just say "Prove relativity doesn't exist." He's the one who said it was true, so he proved that observations are more consistent with his model, even though his wasn't the prevailing position at the time and even though people said he was wrong.
That's not true. Many people figure stuff out before the science supports it. In fact, sometimes they study it because people are saying, "Hey, this is the case!"DeguelloTex wrote: »
I'm not dictating it. The standard, accepted framework of logic and debate dictate it. Putting forth the conclusion of addiction requires proof of that conclusion. It doesn't require being disproven. It's been that way since Socrates and before, however much you don't like it or are unaware of it.MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Uh, no. You don't get to dictate rules as to which assertions need to be backed up and which don't. Good try, though! That's very cute. LOL!DeguelloTex wrote: »
No, that's also not how it works. If one wants to assert an addiction, the burden of proof is to prove that that addiction exists, not shift the burden to someone else to prove it doesn't. The other person has nothing to disprove until the addition is proven.MoiAussi93 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
That's not how the burden of proof works.MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Where is your proof that sugar is not addictive?Reema_capricorn wrote: »I just read a book called Only fat people skip breakfast by Lee jagnoly and the only advice she doles out throughout the book is remove sugar from your diet and eat anything you want in moderation. You will experience withdrawal and also headaches if you are seriously addicted but if you are so desperate stick to dark chocolate
This book is just about selling you something in my opinion since the advice contradicts itself.
Eat everything in moderation, but not sugar....none of that. Don't eat sugar except dark chocolate which also has sugar in it.
And I hate to break it to this author, but while sugar may be psychologically or emotionally problematic, it is in no way physically addictive. Every person who says this, I want to take them to a detox unit and literally show them what physical addiction and withdrawal actually looks like.
Yes, it is. If you state something as fact, you should be able to back it up.
But, hey, congrats on veering this thread towards the recycle bin since that's the proven method of discourse here.
There have been threads here about Oral Allergy Syndrome. People who had it knew it was real. Allergists who heard lots of different people describe it knew it was real. They didn't say, "There is no science to support this, so it cannot be real! My patients just don't like strawberries!" A lot of lay people said that, though. "You just don't like them."
It got studied and studied and studied and studied some more. Finally, someone figured out it was related to proteins. And they gave it a name.
It was real before it had a name.
Logical people, when they hear others describing the same thing, think, "There might be something to this." That's logical. That's scientific.
Saying, "I can't google it! There is no study that says it's true, so it must be false!!" That is the illogical thing.
0 -
Like I said, not enough words in the universe. Even though I had already posted the of kind helpful post you mention. Even though my friends list is overwhelmingly people who added me, because I was helpful to them. Because "some people" still crave things after eating them. Even though some don't. For someone who likes to make a lot of "some people this" and "some people that" posts, you're awfully inflexible when it comes to your beliefs about the motivations of others, despite facts which contradict those beliefs. A more introspective person might wonder why she thinks like this.
For some people, eating the food will not satisfy the craving. I know it didn't work for me. Eat pasta, crave more. Eat more, wait a little, crave more. Eating it didn't help. Not eating more didn't help. The only that helped was not allowing the craving to begin, which could only be done by never eating any in the first place.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Do you really -- I mean really -- need to have it explained to you how eating the object of your craving could satisfy your craving? That's the hill you want to die on? In the name of all that is holy, how'd you make it to whatever age you've made it to without hearing the phrase "satisfied his craving"? That's. What. Eating. What. You. Crave. Can. Do.DeguelloTex wrote: »
No. It isn't. That's how you choose to read it and there aren't enough words in the universe to convince you otherwise.mantium999 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
You don't think they'd say try the patch or the gum to deal with the cravings? Cold turkey or nothing? Seems pretty unlikely as a universal approach, doesn't it?DeguelloTex wrote: »
Dude, tell me how that was mocking or minimizing anything.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Can you point out some of the mocking and minimizing you've seen in this thread?stevencloser wrote: »UltimateRBF wrote: »
The reason so many people are overweight is they are eating too many calories of carbohydrates.WinoGelato wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »What can I do to help alleviate sugar cravings?
Hi, @Jefbro98.
Do you have a medical reason for avoiding sugar?
If not, did you know that sugar is a vital part of a healthy diet, so it's fine to eat it in moderation.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/added-sugar/art-20045328
The science says we do not need to eat sugar or any carbs for health. Protein and fats are essential nutrients. This fundamental understanding is important to help people combat the overpromotion of carbs by the food and nutrition industries and put them in the proper place and amount in diets built for health.
A majority of obese, overweight and even skinny people with metabolic illnesses are over eating carbohydrates, please do not undermine the accurate understanding of nutritional needs that will help them address their health issues.
Yes because a diet void of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains is obviously the healthiest possible diet.
There are many, many healthy carbs. If the OP wants to restrict added sugars from her diet (either permanently or forever) because she has difficulty moderating them, I have no issues with that, but I feel that extreme restriction of an entire macro group because someone has labeled carbs as junk is unnecessary and definitely not a straight pathway to health for any individual.
The bolded statement is true due to our overeating of a non-essental nutrient for a very large group of people with metabolic health issues.
It is fully possible to get all nutrients needed from a variety of meats and water.
To your body, carbohydrates are non-essential. Non-essential means you do not need to eat them to sustain your life. The reason so many so many of us are sick and overweight is we are eating HALF of our diet (or much more fore some) of a non essential nutrient that our many of our bodies cannot handle eating at that quantity.
No. The reason so many people are overweight is they are eating too many calories. Period. There are some people with medical conditions that may need to restrict carbohydrates, but that is not the majority of the population.
Reducing carbohydrates can be an effective tool to help achieve a calorie deficit, enabling people to lose weight and become healthier, but to advise that a diet of meat and water is better than a balanced diet of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, lean meat, dairy, and healthy fats is ludicrous.
In the last 4 decades in the US consumption went up by 200c pp per day and carb consumption percent of calories went up by 20%. Results equal diabesity epidemic. It follows that we also have a pre-diabetic epidemic also since it takes years or decades of inappropriate diet to create a diabetic. This is what happens when we elevate a non-essential macronutrient (carbs) to an unnatural level in our diets.
No one said meat and water was healthier except you. Don't misread.
Our health system is strictly oriented to treating identified sickness. It is pretty useless at stopping people from getting sick by diet, that is strictly the job of the individual.
I've only read this far in the thread, but do you have any sources for what appear to be these rather far fetched claims you keep making?
Because your statement you yourself bolded is blatantly false
Here is my farfetched source - http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5304a3.htm
I read the link...and yes...our carb intake has increased. I think however that you have to look beyond just the "carb" and ask yourself why...just why has our carb intake increased.
IMO...no scientific data to prove my point...one reason is that as food prices have risen people have had to adjust their food expenditure. Carbs on the whole are generally cheap...they go a long way...they are versatile...they are filling when combined with other foods. Pasta...rice...potatoes...bread...along with other carbs are inexpensive thus allowing a family to stretch their food budget.
In the Editorial section of the link that you posted...
"The increase in caloric intake described in this report is consistent with previously reported trends in dietary intake in the United States (7). USDA survey data for 1977--1996 suggest that factors contributing to the increase in energy intake in the United States include consumption of food away from home; increased energy consumption from salty snacks, soft drinks, and pizza (8); and increased portion sizes (9)."
There are other factors to consider...namely...eating outside the home and increased portion sizes. These two reasons would and do apply to any food group...fat/protein.
There has been more than once in my life that I have had little money to buy food. I stretched what I could buy with things such as pasta and potatoes. Someone telling me to cut my carbs at those times without knowing my circumstances would not have been helpful. I have gone from pasta/potatoes being a food item that I had every day to now about once a week...I have more options now.
Moral of this story...know your audience before you hand out advice. Life is much more complicated than just...don't eat carbs or sugar...IMO
I think we're on the same page as far as advice. The only time I open my mouth is when people come to the forums with concerns about how much sugar or carbs they consume and they get told to not fight the cravings or to not worry about eating carbs because of an anti- low carb agenda.
Low carb is a worthwhile dietary strategy and possibly even health saving for some people with no downside risks.
If people have a hunch they need to start addressing weight or health problems with sugar or carb reduction it is important to respect that concern.
You seem to have a pro low carb agenda then. And people are not saying to "not worry about eating carbs" in the way you're claiming.
The times when people are saying eating carbs is okay is when people come around saying carbs are literally poison or some cocaine-like addictive substance. Or when someone says you'll be totally healthy on meat and water alone.
I do not really care about carb arguments at all. My only focus is to get the anti-low carbers to stop mocking and minimizing newbies requests for help on limiting carbs and carb cravings.
ETA: You might also want to re-examine your premises. Again, the OP didn't ask about limiting carbs. You read that into the OP. But you don't really care about carb arguments at all. "Incongruent" comes to to mind.
Dude, it was you and someone else who jumped in right away to say 'eat what you are craving'.
Person A: "Man, I really want some cookies right now."
Me: "Can you fit those cookies in your calories for the day?"
umayster: "Stop mocking and minimizing."
But you don't have an agenda. Self-awareness is a thing.
Generally speaking, if someone is asking how to alleviate a craving, they are asking how to get through it without actually ingesting the substance. If someone asked how people alleviate nicotine cravings, I would hope people wouldn't just tell them to go have a cigarette (no, I am not saying sugar is addictive, I am comparing the language usage to illustrate a point that the meaning of alleviating cravings would be clear enough in that case, so it would be similarly clear in this case). And since the OP came back and even said that he's going to try to hold on and fight the cravings, it does not seem that fitting it into his diet is what he is looking to do here.
If the OP, in particular, doesn't want to fit the sugar into his diet, he doesn't have to. I'd said as much. That doesn't invalidate the idea that mindfully incorporating sugar, since it's not inherently bad, is a viable approach. Does it? I mean, if the OP said, "Yeah, I see that sugar can be part of a healthy diet. I'm going to try that" would it mean that elimination wouldn't be viable, even desirable, for someone else?
And, again, the mere statement that it is possible -- not required, but possible -- to incorporate sugar to deal with the cravings doesn't amount to mocking or minimization. Right? Agreed?
I edited the quoted post, which I know you didn't see, but just letting you know.
Yes, some people use the patch or gum, but the goal is to use that to help reduce and eliminate cigarette/nicotine use, not just replace it. I'm sure some people probably do replace it, but that's not what it was designed for, and it doesn't seem like it was the OP's intention from any of his posts in this thread to fit those foods into his diet.
I don't have issues with moderation, nor do I care if people share what works for them, but I'm also not sure why these arguments go on and on even after the OP has clarified their meaning. I don't think anyone's initial response was necessarily wrong, but I am surprised that people see so much ambiguity in a phrase when asking about sugar, when the intent would be perfectly clear if someone asked how to alleviate the craving for a cigarette.
Maybe because a craving for a cigarette is based on nicotine addiction (a substantiated addiction), while cravings for a particular food are not tied to a valid addiction? A person can fit foods they crave into a healthy diet and lifestyle, and often lack the knowledge that it is possible and how to do it. Ambiguity is caused by a common misunderstanding that sugar, independent of overall diet, is "bad" or "addictive". These arguments commence as an attempt to ensure understanding. As a former smoker, I doubt there is any way to fit a moderate amount of cigarettes into a healthy life. You are making a terrible comparison by linking the 2.
This is exactly the problem.
"We don't believe you have a valid point of view, so we will not help you" is fine. Ignore the thread.
But the, "Eat sugar!" is done not to help the person, but to point out that you don't believe they have a valid point of view.
It is to point out that sugar isn't evil and that it is possible for some people to continue to eat sugar once they understand that sugar, as sugar, doesn't make them fat. It has nothing to do with the validity of their choice to eat or not to eat sugar. Both choices are valid. It's about making it clear that there actually are multiple viable choices and that elimination isn't the only viable option.
If that were the case, there would be some explanation of how eating it helped with the cravings. Heck, when asked for that, you made a comment about how "an adult" shouldn't need help. Right here in this thread.
There is no effort to help anyone behind that stuff. Manitum specifically stated why the question is treated different than a smoker's would be. Because he doesn't believe they have a real problem.
Problems you believe are real, you help with.
Problems you don't believe are real are mocked.
There are words that would make me believe I'm wrong. Those words are the ones that offer help to people who ask for it. They needn't be directed to me at all.
And I explained how I deal with my cravings. You even quoted and commented on what I wrote, so I know you read it so I know you know it exists. I explained how I make what I want fit into my caloric goals and that I thought fitting sugar would be even easier than fitting entire meals. I know you read that. So I did offer the words you purport would make you believe you're wrong, but you're apparently going to ignore that I wrote them because they don't fit your narrative.
But, somehow, I'm still mocking people. You clearly have a perspective that you're not willing to change. Like I said earlier.
If you insist that your approach is done to help people, I'm not going to keep going back and forth over it. You're right, I don't believe that you're trying to be helpful, but there is no point in going back and forth over it.
0 -
As stated in the quotes, the ambiguity here is due to people's beliefs about sugar, and it seems it's more about getting their position on that topic out there than actually helping the OP with his situation. I do not disagree that "stop eating sugar" should be the only answer to appear, however I think that "eat sugar in moderation" is not always the most appropriate answer either, particularly in cases where the person indicates they are trying to cut back. But I also don't particularly care why someone else chooses to do something in their life and their diet if it's not detrimental to their health and helps them get to their goal, so perhaps I don't take these types of posts as seriously as others.
I don't think it necessarily their beliefs but rather their experiences. Many of us have tried multiple strategies to figure out the best approach. I have tried stuff like paleo and eliminating foods that i perceived as not healthy, but what i found is it was an ineffective strategy for me. The big question here is, will the OP do better with an elimination diet or restrictive diet because some people like a more structured approach or will they prefer to preplan for incorporation. Unfortunately, we dont know that and may not understand until the OP tries both. So it is important to understand all approaches.
In the end, success is really determined by one main factor... consistency. Everyone needs to find a strategy that enables them to consistently hit their goals.
0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
I'm not dictating it. The standard, accepted framework of logic and debate dictate it. Putting forth the conclusion of addiction requires proof of that conclusion. It doesn't require being disproven. It's been that way since Socrates and before, however much you don't like it or are unaware of it.MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Uh, no. You don't get to dictate rules as to which assertions need to be backed up and which don't. Good try, though! That's very cute. LOL!DeguelloTex wrote: »
No, that's also not how it works. If one wants to assert an addiction, the burden of proof is to prove that that addiction exists, not shift the burden to someone else to prove it doesn't. The other person has nothing to disprove until the addition is proven.MoiAussi93 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
That's not how the burden of proof works.MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Where is your proof that sugar is not addictive?Reema_capricorn wrote: »I just read a book called Only fat people skip breakfast by Lee jagnoly and the only advice she doles out throughout the book is remove sugar from your diet and eat anything you want in moderation. You will experience withdrawal and also headaches if you are seriously addicted but if you are so desperate stick to dark chocolate
This book is just about selling you something in my opinion since the advice contradicts itself.
Eat everything in moderation, but not sugar....none of that. Don't eat sugar except dark chocolate which also has sugar in it.
And I hate to break it to this author, but while sugar may be psychologically or emotionally problematic, it is in no way physically addictive. Every person who says this, I want to take them to a detox unit and literally show them what physical addiction and withdrawal actually looks like.
Yes, it is. If you state something as fact, you should be able to back it up.
But, hey, congrats on veering this thread towards the recycle bin since that's the proven method of discourse here.
There are plenty of studies that say sugar is addictive. The problem is the people on this site won't accept any of them, and come up with ridiculous excuses why each is not valid. Even though I suspect the vast majority of the mfp users are not MD, PhD's who have worked in the field, they all think they are qualified to throw studies published in reputable medical journals in the trash and ridicule anyone who agrees with the findings based on their own experience. They claim as FACT that sugar is not addictive despite studies contradicting that assertion. Yet, you claim they have no burden to prove it isn't addictive.
Sorry, that flimsy faux-logic does not fly with me. You can say whatever you like, but if you claim it is fact and can't back it up I will call you on it.
In all fairness, its hard to fully trust rat studies. If there were any studies with human trials, it would be more plausible. And besides the eat patterns under which most of the rats showed addiction doesnt mirror that of the typical person....
There is a difference between what you wrote and when someone else writes "sugar is NOT addictive. It's all in people's heads. They just don't want to take personal responsibility. There is NO EVIDENCE for addiction. Woo"
What you wrote basically sounds like you are skeptical, but you acknowledge that it could at least be possible, or even if you highly doubt it you acknowledge that there is SOME science to support it at least to some degree.
Other people act like people who believe this are just morons who are pulling this idea out of thin air.
I believe it. You don't. But the reality is it has not yet been proven one way or the other and research in this area does continue.
I believe that science evolves and i try to always maintain an open mind. At this point, i do not believe that sugar is addictive but rather hyperpalatble foods can cause emotional triggers. I say this because most peoples trigger foods are generally foods that are high in fat and sugar. What i dont see is people addicted to fruits.
0 -
caroldavison332 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »caroldavison332 wrote: »77% of processed food contains sugar. Stop eating it. Chemically it makes your energy drop and secrete insulin which tells you body that you are hungry.
I've been on my diet for 3 weeks. Last Friday I had a chef salad with bacon, cheese and hard boiled eggs. It wasn't as good as the vegan salad (bitter greens, asparagus, beans, beets, jicima, kale salad, califlower, broccoli, mushrooms, onions, peanuts, sesame seeds) that I normally have at work.
MY TASTES CHANGED! SO CAN YOURS!
82.5734% of statistics are made up on the spot.
My statistics come from Dr Robert Lustig. Where did yours come from?
Dr.Lustig is well known to have an agenda and fequently cherry picks science to validate his position.
One thing you may not realize is that protein spikes insulin as much as carbs. What you also have to realize is in a normal body, you will cycle between lipogenesis and lipolysis.
If you actually want to understand insulin a bit more below is a good link:
http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=3190 -
caroldavison332 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »caroldavison332 wrote: »77% of processed food contains sugar. Stop eating it. Chemically it makes your energy drop and secrete insulin which tells you body that you are hungry.
I've been on my diet for 3 weeks. Last Friday I had a chef salad with bacon, cheese and hard boiled eggs. It wasn't as good as the vegan salad (bitter greens, asparagus, beans, beets, jicima, kale salad, califlower, broccoli, mushrooms, onions, peanuts, sesame seeds) that I normally have at work.
MY TASTES CHANGED! SO CAN YOURS!
82.5734% of statistics are made up on the spot.
My statistics come from Dr Robert Lustig. Where did yours come from?
Dr.Lustig is well known to have an agenda and fequently cherry picks science to validate his position.
One thing you may not realize is that protein spikes insulin as much as carbs. What you also have to realize is in a normal body, you will cycle between lipogenesis and lipolysis.
If you actually want to understand insulin a bit more below is a good link:
http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319
I have to disagree with the bolded. This is not usually the case. Generally carbs spike insulin higher than protein unless the carb is very high in fibre (like bran) and not entirely digestible. I would say protein elevates insulin but carbs spike insulin.
Protein does need some insulin because it helps put the amino acids into the muscles where it is needed. Yes, the insulin released, after consuming protein, in an insulin resistant individual will be higher than they would like, but it would have been even higher if it was a carb heavy meal.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/66/5/1264.full.pdf+html?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&author1=holt&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT0 -
caroldavison332 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »caroldavison332 wrote: »77% of processed food contains sugar. Stop eating it. Chemically it makes your energy drop and secrete insulin which tells you body that you are hungry.
I've been on my diet for 3 weeks. Last Friday I had a chef salad with bacon, cheese and hard boiled eggs. It wasn't as good as the vegan salad (bitter greens, asparagus, beans, beets, jicima, kale salad, califlower, broccoli, mushrooms, onions, peanuts, sesame seeds) that I normally have at work.
MY TASTES CHANGED! SO CAN YOURS!
82.5734% of statistics are made up on the spot.
My statistics come from Dr Robert Lustig. Where did yours come from?
Dr.Lustig is well known to have an agenda and fequently cherry picks science to validate his position.
One thing you may not realize is that protein spikes insulin as much as carbs. What you also have to realize is in a normal body, you will cycle between lipogenesis and lipolysis.
If you actually want to understand insulin a bit more below is a good link:
http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319
I have to disagree with the bolded. This is not usually the case. Generally carbs spike insulin higher than protein unless the carb is very high in fibre (like bran) and not entirely digestible. I would say protein elevates insulin but carbs spike insulin.
Protein does need some insulin because it helps put the amino acids into the muscles where it is needed. Yes, the insulin released, after consuming protein, in an insulin resistant individual will be higher than they would like, but it would have been even higher if it was a carb heavy meal.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/66/5/1264.full.pdf+html?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&author1=holt&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT
I guess it really should be compartmentalized, as different proteins have different responses, because according to the chart, fish has an equivalent insulin score as potato chips. But overall, their group (protein) average is lower than many carb foods.
0 -
UltimateRBF wrote: »
The reason so many people are overweight is they are eating too many calories of carbohydrates.WinoGelato wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »What can I do to help alleviate sugar cravings?
Hi, @Jefbro98.
Do you have a medical reason for avoiding sugar?
If not, did you know that sugar is a vital part of a healthy diet, so it's fine to eat it in moderation.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/added-sugar/art-20045328
The science says we do not need to eat sugar or any carbs for health. Protein and fats are essential nutrients. This fundamental understanding is important to help people combat the overpromotion of carbs by the food and nutrition industries and put them in the proper place and amount in diets built for health.
A majority of obese, overweight and even skinny people with metabolic illnesses are over eating carbohydrates, please do not undermine the accurate understanding of nutritional needs that will help them address their health issues.
Yes because a diet void of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains is obviously the healthiest possible diet.
There are many, many healthy carbs. If the OP wants to restrict added sugars from her diet (either permanently or forever) because she has difficulty moderating them, I have no issues with that, but I feel that extreme restriction of an entire macro group because someone has labeled carbs as junk is unnecessary and definitely not a straight pathway to health for any individual.
The bolded statement is true due to our overeating of a non-essental nutrient for a very large group of people with metabolic health issues.
It is fully possible to get all nutrients needed from a variety of meats and water.
To your body, carbohydrates are non-essential. Non-essential means you do not need to eat them to sustain your life. The reason so many so many of us are sick and overweight is we are eating HALF of our diet (or much more fore some) of a non essential nutrient that our many of our bodies cannot handle eating at that quantity.
No. The reason so many people are overweight is they are eating too many calories. Period. There are some people with medical conditions that may need to restrict carbohydrates, but that is not the majority of the population.
Reducing carbohydrates can be an effective tool to help achieve a calorie deficit, enabling people to lose weight and become healthier, but to advise that a diet of meat and water is better than a balanced diet of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, lean meat, dairy, and healthy fats is ludicrous.
In the last 4 decades in the US consumption went up by 200c pp per day and carb consumption percent of calories went up by 20%. Results equal diabesity epidemic. It follows that we also have a pre-diabetic epidemic also since it takes years or decades of inappropriate diet to create a diabetic. This is what happens when we elevate a non-essential macronutrient (carbs) to an unnatural level in our diets.
No one said meat and water was healthier except you. Don't misread.
Our health system is strictly oriented to treating identified sickness. It is pretty useless at stopping people from getting sick by diet, that is strictly the job of the individual.
I've only read this far in the thread, but do you have any sources for what appear to be these rather far fetched claims you keep making?
Because your statement you yourself bolded is blatantly false
Here is my farfetched source - http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5304a3.htm
Here is additional data to what happens to intakes if you expand it another 7 years.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/91/5/1530S.full
"Long-term trends indicate marked increases in availability of added oils, meat, cheese, frozen dairy products, sweeteners (particularly those used in carbonated beverages), fruit, fruit juices, and vegetables, which may have influenced the prevalence of childhood obesity. Flour and cereal availability has fallen since the early 1900s but has rebounded in recent decades. "
aka... all foods have increased. The bigger problem is... too much food, not enough exercise and very little control over ones diet. It's how most of us got into this situation.
OP, personally, i have seen much greater success when I have preplanned a treat into my diet. For some, eating more fruit works, for others its eliminating foods. You really have to determine which route works best for you.
I guess that I should have clarified in my original post that I crave carbs from the wrong sources. I crave carbs/sugar from processed foods such as candy, cookies, white bread, etc. The carbs from healthy sources dont satiate me. If I budget these into my diet then that uses up half my calories. I guess I'll just have to keep fighting and also make some hard choices until the cravings subside. The cravings have lessened somewhat over the past week or so.0 -
I don't understand why some people are stating that sugar isn't addictive. If I'm not addicted to it then why do I feel physically ill when I don't have it. Why does it give me so much satisfaction when I get it after I've been craving it. I feel that my reactions to it are the same as the reactions that smokers have to nicotine, or that an alcoholic has to the drink. Too much sugar can do just as much harm as a cigarette or alcohol. I believe that the reason that I'm fighting so hard to lose weight now is mainly because of my constant cravings for sugar and carbs from processed foods.0
-
Mezzie1024 wrote: »I am speaking without any scientific authority here -- just my own experience.
If I have periods of eating that are heavy in salt and sugar, it makes my ability to enjoy fresh fruits and vegetables lessen. After a bag of chips, a handful of freshly picked cherry tomatoes simply isn't going to have the same appeal or complexity of flavor as it does when I haven't been overloading my diet with salt and/or sugar. Likewise, too much salt or sugar limits my ability to truly enjoy a piece of fruit, and that's horrible because a really ripe peach is the most delicious thing on the planet. For me, eating things heavy in salt leads to me eating things heavy in sugar and vice versa. I love fruits and vegetables, so I limit things that make me enjoy them less.
I don't have to completely avoid them. Last night I had a scoop of Ben and Jerry's, and it was delicious. Had I eaten the entire pint, however, the peaches ripening on my table wouldn't be torturing me quite so much right now (they smell SO GOOD, but they aren't quite ready) and perhaps the open bag of chips my roommates have on the counter might be calling my name. I just don't go crazy. I find that having a piece of fruit for dessert is just as satisfying -- even more satisfying most of the time -- than having something super sweet. But for me, salt is an issue, too. If I have a very salty dinner, I'm more likely to choose a super sweet dessert. If I have a very sweet treat, I'm more likely to want to follow it with a salty snack.
It is entirely possible that this is just a personal quirk of mine, but if I were in your shoes having torturous cravings for sugar, I'd actually look to limiting my salt intake a bit to quiet the cravings.
BINGO! this makes so much sense for me.... THANKS. I have noticed these trends (don't want a piece of fruit after a sugar or salt snack) .... fruit alone for desert can be wonderful.... IF I haven't had a 'heavy' snack or rich meal.. My issue is I never think of fruit - lived in the north as a child and fruit was non-existent. This is where charting my food the day before comes in...0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions