Anyone Successfully Quit Sugar?
Replies
-
I think a better way to approach this would be, "I am trying to reduce my calorie intake, and reducing foods with added sugars seem like a good place to start because generally they are the most calorie dense variety..."brianpperkins wrote: »It's funny how a chemical compound can get such a different level of acceptance depending on how it is ingested although the compound remains chemically constant.
I think that is totally reasonable and would provoke far fewer arguments...
Even better if the person said, "I've been diligently tracking my calories and macros for several weeks now and have noticed that a disproportionately large percentage of my calories come from foods with added sugars..."
0 -
Agreed...WinoGelato wrote: »
I think a better way to approach this would be, "I am trying to reduce my calorie intake, and reducing foods with added sugars seem like a good place to start because generally they are the most calorie dense variety..."brianpperkins wrote: »It's funny how a chemical compound can get such a different level of acceptance depending on how it is ingested although the compound remains chemically constant.
I think that is totally reasonable and would provoke far fewer arguments...
Even better if the person said, "I've been diligently tracking my calories and macros for several weeks now and have noticed that a disproportionately large percentage of my calories come from foods with added sugars..."
0 -
I think a better way to approach this would be, "I am trying to reduce my calorie intake, and reducing foods with added sugars seem like a good place to start because generally they are the most calorie dense variety..."brianpperkins wrote: »It's funny how a chemical compound can get such a different level of acceptance depending on how it is ingested although the compound remains chemically constant.
If only that were how people presented the subject. It isn't. Thread after thread gets started that demonize sugar while trying to claim that a molecule somehow has different properties depending on how it is consumed. The approach that WineGelato proposed requires analysis when simply ranting that X (sugars, fats, grains, whatever the scapegoat de jour happens to be) is "bad" is so much easier.0 -
Yep...brianpperkins wrote: »
I think a better way to approach this would be, "I am trying to reduce my calorie intake, and reducing foods with added sugars seem like a good place to start because generally they are the most calorie dense variety..."brianpperkins wrote: »It's funny how a chemical compound can get such a different level of acceptance depending on how it is ingested although the compound remains chemically constant.
If only that were how people presented the subject. It isn't. Thread after thread gets started that demonize sugar while trying to claim that a molecule somehow has different properties depending on how it is consumed. The approach that WineGelato proposed requires analysis when simply ranting that X (sugars, fats, grains, whatever the scapegoat de jour happens to be) is "bad" is so much easier.
0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »
I think a better way to approach this would be, "I am trying to reduce my calorie intake, and reducing foods with added sugars seem like a good place to start because generally they are the most calorie dense variety..."brianpperkins wrote: »It's funny how a chemical compound can get such a different level of acceptance depending on how it is ingested although the compound remains chemically constant.
I think that is totally reasonable and would provoke far fewer arguments...
Even better if the person said, "I've been diligently tracking my calories and macros for several weeks now and have noticed that a disproportionately large percentage of my calories come from foods with added sugars..."
Exactly this.
Or I am trying to reduce my calorie intake, so will start by cutting way down on less filling, lower nutrient, and higher calorie items.
For many that would be sugary foods, although for others it might not be much of that, but more fries or chips or some such.
For me it was takeout Indian food. (Which isn't really low nutrient, but was unnecessarily high in calories for something I had as often as I did.)0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »
I think a better way to approach this would be, "I am trying to reduce my calorie intake, and reducing foods with added sugars seem like a good place to start because generally they are the most calorie dense variety..."brianpperkins wrote: »It's funny how a chemical compound can get such a different level of acceptance depending on how it is ingested although the compound remains chemically constant.
I think that is totally reasonable and would provoke far fewer arguments...
Even better if the person said, "I've been diligently tracking my calories and macros for several weeks now and have noticed that a disproportionately large percentage of my calories come from foods with added sugars..."
Exactly this.
Or I am trying to reduce my calorie intake, so will start by cutting way down on less filling, lower nutrient, and higher calorie items.
For many that would be sugary foods, although for others it might not be much of that, but more fries or chips or some such.
For me it was takeout Indian food. (Which isn't really low nutrient, but was unnecessarily high in calories for something I had as often as I did.)
Great now I'm craving Tikka Masala, Naan, and Samosas with Chutney. Why do you sabotage me @lemurcat12? Why!?
0 -
I haven't quit sugar but I do try to keep my sugar levels down (below the goal MFP sets for me if possible), and now consume far less than I used to.0
-
I have largely eliminated sugar from my life. I think I usually have between 0-7 g of sugar per day. The sugars I do get are from low GI fruits (avocado, berries, cucumbers, tomatoes) or from processed foods like a pepperoni stick.
I started eating a very LCHF diet to stop the prediabetes I am developing. I was not overweight by much, and am now not overweight, so simply losing weight wasn't enough to help me. I also wanted help with my autoimmune arthritis and my knee and hip osteoarthritis. I needed to reduce inflammation because OA, and that much pain, was ridiculous for someone in her late thirties, early forties who enjoys sports. My pain has decreased by a large amount, especially my AI arthritis. My OA has improved, but there are bone issues now that a good diet won't fix... It did help though. As a bonus, my skin cleared up, my hair thickened, migraines went away, I have more energy, and I am noticeably sharper mentally - I didn't realize how foggy I was until I got out of it.
I eat to be in ketosis. The first week or so were tough. I didn't up my sodium, potassium, and magnesium enough to avoid the keto flu. I feel very good now though, and a nice benefit was that I found it much easier to eat at a caloric deficit and lose weight.
I would recommend it.0 -
So many pretty snow flakes in here!!!!0
-
WinoGelato wrote: »
I think a better way to approach this would be, "I am trying to reduce my calorie intake, and reducing foods with added sugars seem like a good place to start because generally they are the most calorie dense variety..."brianpperkins wrote: »It's funny how a chemical compound can get such a different level of acceptance depending on how it is ingested although the compound remains chemically constant.
I think that is totally reasonable and would provoke far fewer arguments...
Even better if the person said, "I've been diligently tracking my calories and macros for several weeks now and have noticed that a disproportionately large percentage of my calories come from foods with added sugars..."
It sounds like you are saying the person writing the post is accountable for how other people choose to respond to it, and placing the responsibility for those responses on the OP, rather than the person responding. I don't see anything in the OP that is controversial, so I'm not sure how it is provoking arguments.0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »BlueSkiesGirl wrote: »Hello,
I would like to quit sugar as part of a hormonal balancing diet ...
Has anyone quit sugar successfully and if so please share your story.
THanks!
@BlueSkiesGirl I quit sugar successfully for pain management. When in 30 days the pain dropped from a subjective 7-8 level to 2-3 on a 1-10 scale I made this way of eating (5% carbs, 15% protein and the rest fats) my eating lifestyle. A year later the pain is still manage, I daily eat until I am stuffed, IBS was cured within six months, lab results continue improve and my weight continues to drop if I do not eat over 2600 calories a day permitting me to now be under 200 pounds for the first time in 22 years.
Learning that eating carbs are not a requirement for quality health by humans help permit me to break my emotional need for carbs.
In the real world very few will ever walk away from most sugar be it sodas, apples or ice cream because there may be no medical reason for them to do so. No one else in the house has given up sugar and it is everywhere I look. However they fully can see how removing sugar from my life has made mine and their lives better since I no longer have sugar crashes and get meaner than a Junk Yard dog.
I've heard that story before. 0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »BlueSkiesGirl wrote: »Hello,
I would like to quit sugar as part of a hormonal balancing diet ...
Has anyone quit sugar successfully and if so please share your story.
THanks!
@BlueSkiesGirl I quit sugar successfully for pain management. When in 30 days the pain dropped from a subjective 7-8 level to 2-3 on a 1-10 scale I made this way of eating (5% carbs, 15% protein and the rest fats) my eating lifestyle. A year later the pain is still manage, I daily eat until I am stuffed, IBS was cured within six months, lab results continue improve and my weight continues to drop if I do not eat over 2600 calories a day permitting me to now be under 200 pounds for the first time in 22 years.
Learning that eating carbs are not a requirement for quality health by humans help permit me to break my emotional need for carbs.
In the real world very few will ever walk away from most sugar be it sodas, apples or ice cream because there may be no medical reason for them to do so. No one else in the house has given up sugar and it is everywhere I look. However they fully can see how removing sugar from my life has made mine and their lives better since I no longer have sugar crashes and get meaner than a Junk Yard dog.
I've heard that story before.
ad nauseam0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »
I think a better way to approach this would be, "I am trying to reduce my calorie intake, and reducing foods with added sugars seem like a good place to start because generally they are the most calorie dense variety..."brianpperkins wrote: »It's funny how a chemical compound can get such a different level of acceptance depending on how it is ingested although the compound remains chemically constant.
I think that is totally reasonable and would provoke far fewer arguments...
Even better if the person said, "I've been diligently tracking my calories and macros for several weeks now and have noticed that a disproportionately large percentage of my calories come from foods with added sugars..."
It sounds like you are saying the person writing the post is accountable for how other people choose to respond to it, and placing the responsibility for those responses on the OP, rather than the person responding. I don't see anything in the OP that is controversial, so I'm not sure how it is provoking arguments.
She didn't say the OP, she was just making a statement.
We all know that every time sugar threads are started it turns into a train wreck of sugar is the devil.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »
I think a better way to approach this would be, "I am trying to reduce my calorie intake, and reducing foods with added sugars seem like a good place to start because generally they are the most calorie dense variety..."brianpperkins wrote: »It's funny how a chemical compound can get such a different level of acceptance depending on how it is ingested although the compound remains chemically constant.
I think that is totally reasonable and would provoke far fewer arguments...
Even better if the person said, "I've been diligently tracking my calories and macros for several weeks now and have noticed that a disproportionately large percentage of my calories come from foods with added sugars..."
It sounds like you are saying the person writing the post is accountable for how other people choose to respond to it, and placing the responsibility for those responses on the OP, rather than the person responding. I don't see anything in the OP that is controversial, so I'm not sure how it is provoking arguments.
FWIW - OP "subject" is scientifically flawed......0 -
OP I'm not sure what hormonal balance your seeking but this week I maintained my calories from last week, increased by sensitivity to XXXXXX by running/cycling/lifting/walking. My cortisol hormone is in balance since my stress decreases as a result of the above movement. Hormones are like whack-a-mole. . . .you can't just try to look at one in a vacuum. Maybe you can with a Dyson. IDK.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »beliwoohoo wrote: »Ps I would bet Blue Skies Girl is Australian (as am I). There is a diet movement to quit sugar here which refers to processed foods. Google "I quit sugar". : )
I don't understand why a government would try to promote something that a population at large is going to be quite unlikely to do (NO sugar at all) vs. trying to encourage the kinds of more moderate, sensible cultural things that many of us grew up with and that were common until recently. Specifically, having something sweet occasionally, as a small dessert or after-school snack, and only if you ate a nutritious meal with vegetables. The problem isn't that humans like and want to eat the occasional sweetened thing--it's the complete lack of restraint where people eat them at all times and huge quantities and don't do enough exercise to account for the calories, etc.
At least, that's what I see in the US.
The "I quit sugar" is not an Australian government program. Government guidelines do suggest moderation. The biggest push is against the overconsumption of calorific beverages and the increased reliance on highly processed food compared to whole foods and downward trend of activity of a, by and large, non calorie counting, macro aware population.
0 -
I eat almost no added sugar. The first week or so I had a lot of cravings, but after that it got much easier. Now, I almost never get cravings, I have much more energy, I don't get energy swings like I used to.
It just makes sticking to a healthy eating plan much easier for me. Best change to my diet I've ever made.0 -
I have plenty of energy all day long and I eat refine sugary food. So not sure what that has to do with it. 0
-
WinoGelato wrote: »
I think a better way to approach this would be, "I am trying to reduce my calorie intake, and reducing foods with added sugars seem like a good place to start because generally they are the most calorie dense variety..."brianpperkins wrote: »It's funny how a chemical compound can get such a different level of acceptance depending on how it is ingested although the compound remains chemically constant.
I think that is totally reasonable and would provoke far fewer arguments...
Even better if the person said, "I've been diligently tracking my calories and macros for several weeks now and have noticed that a disproportionately large percentage of my calories come from foods with added sugars..."
It sounds like you are saying the person writing the post is accountable for how other people choose to respond to it, and placing the responsibility for those responses on the OP, rather than the person responding. I don't see anything in the OP that is controversial, so I'm not sure how it is provoking arguments.
She didn't say the OP, she was just making a statement.
We all know that every time sugar threads are started it turns into a train wreck of sugar is the devil.
Yes, speaking in general terms and specifically responding to the two posters above me who were referencing people who post that they want to quit sugar for weight loss (which actually this OP mentioned doing it for hormonal imbalance which is why I inquired above how sugar intake impacts hormonal balance, I truly have no experience with that and am curious).
But I do believe, as @Serah87 points out, many of these threads devolve quickly and I think some of that could be avoided if posters specified:
1. What exactly they are trying to reduce (added sugars? Refined sugars? All sugars? Same with carbs)
2. Whether they are doing so for medical reasons or to control calories
3. What analysis they've done or research led them to this conclusion that they should try this.
Come to think of it, if a person did all of the above, they probably wouldn't need to post on the forums asking the question in the first place...
0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »
I think a better way to approach this would be, "I am trying to reduce my calorie intake, and reducing foods with added sugars seem like a good place to start because generally they are the most calorie dense variety..."brianpperkins wrote: »It's funny how a chemical compound can get such a different level of acceptance depending on how it is ingested although the compound remains chemically constant.
I think that is totally reasonable and would provoke far fewer arguments...
Even better if the person said, "I've been diligently tracking my calories and macros for several weeks now and have noticed that a disproportionately large percentage of my calories come from foods with added sugars..."
It sounds like you are saying the person writing the post is accountable for how other people choose to respond to it, and placing the responsibility for those responses on the OP, rather than the person responding. I don't see anything in the OP that is controversial, so I'm not sure how it is provoking arguments.
She didn't say the OP, she was just making a statement.
We all know that every time sugar threads are started it turns into a train wreck of sugar is the devil.
I was going to say in threads like this the statements: 'Sugar isn't the devil' and 'there's sugar in fruit and veg' are normally spouted by the pro sugar lot, sometimes provocatively!
In this thread I think we know who it was!!
0 -
I think a better way to approach this would be, "I am trying to reduce my calorie intake, and reducing foods with added sugars seem like a good place to start because generally they are the most calorie dense variety..."brianpperkins wrote: »It's funny how a chemical compound can get such a different level of acceptance depending on how it is ingested although the compound remains chemically constant.
I think in a lot (not all) but a lot of cases this is what the OP means.
Some of them just don't understand the rules of MFP and the need for exact wording.
0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »
I think a better way to approach this would be, "I am trying to reduce my calorie intake, and reducing foods with added sugars seem like a good place to start because generally they are the most calorie dense variety..."brianpperkins wrote: »It's funny how a chemical compound can get such a different level of acceptance depending on how it is ingested although the compound remains chemically constant.
I think that is totally reasonable and would provoke far fewer arguments...
Even better if the person said, "I've been diligently tracking my calories and macros for several weeks now and have noticed that a disproportionately large percentage of my calories come from foods with added sugars..."
It sounds like you are saying the person writing the post is accountable for how other people choose to respond to it, and placing the responsibility for those responses on the OP, rather than the person responding. I don't see anything in the OP that is controversial, so I'm not sure how it is provoking arguments.
She didn't say the OP, she was just making a statement.
We all know that every time sugar threads are started it turns into a train wreck of sugar is the devil.
I was going to say in threads like this the statements: 'Sugar isn't the devil' and 'there's sugar in fruit and veg' are normally spouted by the pro sugar lot, sometimes provocatively!
In this thread I think we know who it was!!
Yep, you do.
0 -
Heck no....coconut sugar is awesome (everything in moderation)0
-
BlueSkiesGirl wrote: »Hello,
I would like to quit sugar as part of a hormonal balancing diet ...
Has anyone quit sugar successfully and if so please share your story.
THanks!
Quit? No. Be very mindful of added sugars? Yes. I stopped eating candy, pastries etc. about 14 years ago when I lost my weight. Went cold turkey. Later I added *some* dark chocolate. That's about it. I'm careful about hidden added sugars too. It can be done. And man did it make losing weight easier and has been the key to me keeping it off. No more blood sugar crashes and ravenous freakish hunger and cravings. Cheers.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »
I think a better way to approach this would be, "I am trying to reduce my calorie intake, and reducing foods with added sugars seem like a good place to start because generally they are the most calorie dense variety..."brianpperkins wrote: »It's funny how a chemical compound can get such a different level of acceptance depending on how it is ingested although the compound remains chemically constant.
If only that were how people presented the subject. It isn't. Thread after thread gets started that demonize sugar while trying to claim that a molecule somehow has different properties depending on how it is consumed. The approach that WineGelato proposed requires analysis when simply ranting that X (sugars, fats, grains, whatever the scapegoat de jour happens to be) is "bad" is so much easier.
I spent a couple days arguing with someone that your body doesn't recognize naturally occurring sugar differently than added sugar.
Yeah it's best to limit added sugar, but that's because it's very hard to limit naturally occurring sugar.0 -
abetterluke wrote: »I would assume since its a hormone balancing diet this is doctor recommended?
I'd like to hear the answer to this question.0 -
Three years ago I gave up eating lollies completely, and quit eating sweet foods while at work. I gained 8 kg.
5 months ago I started counting calories, and while I gave up soft drinks completely, I still eat KFC, McDonald's, chocolate and icecream in moderation, and I've lost 18 kgs.
Cutting out sugars doesn't cause weight loss. Watching your calorie intake does.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions