Sugar Cravings
Replies
-
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 -
Your way isn't the best way.
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.
It's not even a better way.
It's just a different way.
0 -
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.
Just my personal experience here, but DeguelloTex's approach on these forums ABSOLUTELY helped me, for exactly the reason he stated. Just as moderation didn't work for you and others, elimination does not work for many people.
When I first started using MFP forums, I thought I HAD to eliminate certain foods, because that's the standard talking point on diet/nutrition. I was craving the foods I loved and had eliminated and searched the forums for others who had posted topics similar to this one. I was absolutely liberated to learn that my health and weight did not depend on eliminating my favorite foods. My overall diet has become much healthier and I've managed to lose the weight I have so far using the moderation method. My sanity is in tact because of it.
Am I saying that your experience should mirror mine? Absolutely not. Elimination works for you in reaching your goals. However, you need to realize that most people who come to these forums complaining about cravings or addictions have not actually taken the time to research nutrition or weight loss and are basing their current knowledge on nothing more than what they have been told is true. That's why there are so many posters on MFP that swarm on topics like this. It's not an "anti low-carb agenda" (though I'm sure there are some); it's because so many like myself found their answer when someone explained moderation to them. If the OP only believes they need to eliminate sugar because of the current fad diet, then it is absolutely helpful for people who know better to show up and let OP know that there is more than one option. I always see you posting that you think moderation and elimination are equal, just different. Yet you seem really against anyone from the moderation camp letting a person know that they have an option other than elimination. I just don't think you should always be so quick to tell posters in the moderation camp how rude and mean they're being simply because of your own bias.0 -
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.
Just my personal experience here, but DeguelloTex's approach on these forums ABSOLUTELY helped me, for exactly the reason he stated. Just as moderation didn't work for you and others, elimination does not work for many people.
When I first started using MFP forums, I thought I HAD to eliminate certain foods, because that's the standard talking point on diet/nutrition. I was craving the foods I loved and had eliminated and searched the forums for others who had posted topics similar to this one. I was absolutely liberated to learn that my health and weight did not depend on eliminating my favorite foods. My overall diet has become much healthier and I've managed to lose the weight I have so far using the moderation method. My sanity is in tact because of it.
Am I saying that your experience should mirror mine? Absolutely not. Elimination works for you in reaching your goals. However, you need to realize that most people who come to these forums complaining about cravings or addictions have not actually taken the time to research nutrition or weight loss and are basing their current knowledge on nothing more than what they have been told is true. That's why there are so many posters on MFP that swarm on topics like this. It's not an "anti low-carb agenda" (though I'm sure there are some); it's because so many like myself found their answer when someone explained moderation to them. If the OP only believes they need to eliminate sugar because of the current fad diet, then it is absolutely helpful for people who know better to show up and let OP know that there is more than one option. I always see you posting that you think moderation and elimination are equal, just different. Yet you seem really against anyone from the moderation camp letting a person know that they have an option other than elimination. I just don't think you should always be so quick to tell posters in the moderation camp how rude and mean they're being simply because of your own bias.
I'm totally not against moderation in any way. If you'd read the thread, you'd have seen me asking people to elaborate on it.
I think it's fantastic to offer up several ideas. That's what makes boards so wonderful.
I don't think everyone in the moderation camp is mean. Not at all.
I'm very pro on moderation. I said it earlier in the thread. You can read it.
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.
Because you don't experience it then it must just be in people's heads???
I use aspartame...I don't experience any cravings from it either. However that in no way negates that someone else might not.
I don't crave sugar...but I know that others do. However...I do crave salty things...I am sure that others don't.
We all different...we all have different triggers...we don't all have to be like someone else.
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....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?
0 -
Another personal insult. Will you be suggesting that it was said to help me?
Your way isn't the best way.
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.
It's not even a better way.
It's just a different way.
Just like your way is never a way.
As I have stated many times, your personal dislike of me doesn't make me wrong.
It also doesn't mean that everyone on the planet has the binging issues you had.
Not everyone is like you, so they, like me, may be able to take a different approach and not end up binging.
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.0 -
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.0 -
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!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!
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
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 416 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions