Have you tried GLP1 medications and found it didn't work for you? We'd like to hear about your experiences, what you tried, why it didn't work and how you're doing now. Click here to tell us your story
Sugar withdrawal?
Replies
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »
Sugar is a toxin in the same sense water is toxin, or salt is a toxin. Everything is poison if the dose is high enough.lemurcat12 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
They're only contradictory if one presumes that "sugar withdrawal" == "low carb flu." It's certainly possible that "low carb flu" is not, in fact, "sugar withdrawal."lemurcat12 wrote: »Even though I'm putting really healthy and nourishing things in my body, I feel extremely tired and worn down. I'm sleeping better than I ever have before. Is this sugar withdrawal?
No, there's no such thing as sugar withdrawal (no more than there's food withdrawal just because starvation is unpleasant). Especially if you are eating sugar (which is in fruits and vegetables also).
....If you have actually cut carbs dramatically, it could be low carb flu, too.
.
Those two statements are a bit contradictory, IMO. There is a sugar withdrawal for many as there body adapts to a new way of using fuels. It is called the low carb flu when carbs are dropped a great deal. It is also called fat or keto adaptation.
This. Low carb flu is indeed the body adjusting to using ketones rather than glucose (this is not the same as fat adaption -- people not in ketosis can still burn fat, of course). But that doesn't mean that there was something "addictive" or maladapted about the body's use of glucose. If the keto flu is "sugar withdrawal," than the symptoms of starvation are "food withdrawal" and dehydration is "water withdrawal."
I would disagree. You are exaggerating to try to make a point.
Withdrawal is the removal of something, often a toxin, when referring to health, or at the very least a less healthful, unnecessary substance, from your system and acclimating to a healthier set point. Sugar can be a toxin, diabetes wouldn't be as much of a problem is it wasn't.
Water and food are essential. Removing them is not what most would consider to be a withdrawal, but more of an attempt damaging one's health, not improving it.
JMOlemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
They're only contradictory if one presumes that "sugar withdrawal" == "low carb flu." It's certainly possible that "low carb flu" is not, in fact, "sugar withdrawal."lemurcat12 wrote: »Even though I'm putting really healthy and nourishing things in my body, I feel extremely tired and worn down. I'm sleeping better than I ever have before. Is this sugar withdrawal?
No, there's no such thing as sugar withdrawal (no more than there's food withdrawal just because starvation is unpleasant). Especially if you are eating sugar (which is in fruits and vegetables also).
....If you have actually cut carbs dramatically, it could be low carb flu, too.
.
Those two statements are a bit contradictory, IMO. There is a sugar withdrawal for many as there body adapts to a new way of using fuels. It is called the low carb flu when carbs are dropped a great deal. It is also called fat or keto adaptation.
This. Low carb flu is indeed the body adjusting to using ketones rather than glucose (this is not the same as fat adaption -- people not in ketosis can still burn fat, of course). But that doesn't mean that there was something "addictive" or maladapted about the body's use of glucose. If the keto flu is "sugar withdrawal," than the symptoms of starvation are "food withdrawal" and dehydration is "water withdrawal."
Wouldn't that be:
The symptoms of food withdrawal - starvation
The symptoms of water withdrawal - dehydration
?
Nope.
Starving is your body reacting to not having food. The unpleasant symptoms associated with it (hungry, weakness, weight loss, eventual death) are not, of course, normally considered a form of withdrawal, but it would make as much sense to call them such as it does to call the keto flu "sugar withdrawal."
We normally apply "withdrawal" to the body's reaction to being without something bad for us. But the reason you get keto flu isn't that you were "addicted to sugar" or that sugar (here, glucose) is bad for us or we are dependent on it in a way that is contrary to our well-being. It's a normal reaction due to the fact that the human body normal runs on glucose and seems to prefer to do so.
I don't think we've established that OP is likely to have keto flu, as it's not clear that he's gone low carb, just that he's cut down on junk food.
For close to half of the population, the bolded is indeed true. Sugar is bad for us, we are dependent on it until fat adapted, and it is contrary to our well being. I do not think that human bodies run best on glucose, but I do believe it uses glucose first because it needs to get the glucose out of the blood stream before damage is done.
I don't know of a single health issue that could be partially caused by a ketogenic diet, but I know of many health problems that may be caused (partiall) by too much glucose.
I know OP is probably not eating a ketogenic diet, but he is cutting sugar and feeling it. I doubt it is in his head.
Sugar is also fundamentally required for human life, like water or salt.
I have a hard time imagining why animal that's not too distant ancestors were frugivores would run better using fat for fuel than sugar.
Claiming glucose is like heroin, since the body prefers to run on glucose than other sources of energy, when every traditional human diet we know of is NOT ketogenic, is such a self-evidently silly position that it needs no response.
Again, if keto flu=withdrawal, the claim is not that excessive sugar is bad for us (which is obviously true) or even that sugar in any quantity is bad for us (which is generally false, certainly for normal people not on drugs like steroids or with a preexisting health condition or both), but that it is bad for us for the body to use glucose as fuel -- which is the norm in most if not all human populations.
This might also be a good time to mention that the Inuit, the one population I know of that eats traditionally ketogenic, apparently have a significantly shorter life span than the national averages of most first world countries, and it's not getting better.
Might have nothing to do with their diet, but worth mentioning anyway.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
Sugar is a toxin in the same sense water is toxin, or salt is a toxin. Everything is poison if the dose is high enough.lemurcat12 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
They're only contradictory if one presumes that "sugar withdrawal" == "low carb flu." It's certainly possible that "low carb flu" is not, in fact, "sugar withdrawal."lemurcat12 wrote: »Even though I'm putting really healthy and nourishing things in my body, I feel extremely tired and worn down. I'm sleeping better than I ever have before. Is this sugar withdrawal?
No, there's no such thing as sugar withdrawal (no more than there's food withdrawal just because starvation is unpleasant). Especially if you are eating sugar (which is in fruits and vegetables also).
....If you have actually cut carbs dramatically, it could be low carb flu, too.
.
Those two statements are a bit contradictory, IMO. There is a sugar withdrawal for many as there body adapts to a new way of using fuels. It is called the low carb flu when carbs are dropped a great deal. It is also called fat or keto adaptation.
This. Low carb flu is indeed the body adjusting to using ketones rather than glucose (this is not the same as fat adaption -- people not in ketosis can still burn fat, of course). But that doesn't mean that there was something "addictive" or maladapted about the body's use of glucose. If the keto flu is "sugar withdrawal," than the symptoms of starvation are "food withdrawal" and dehydration is "water withdrawal."
I would disagree. You are exaggerating to try to make a point.
Withdrawal is the removal of something, often a toxin, when referring to health, or at the very least a less healthful, unnecessary substance, from your system and acclimating to a healthier set point. Sugar can be a toxin, diabetes wouldn't be as much of a problem is it wasn't.
Water and food are essential. Removing them is not what most would consider to be a withdrawal, but more of an attempt damaging one's health, not improving it.
JMOlemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
They're only contradictory if one presumes that "sugar withdrawal" == "low carb flu." It's certainly possible that "low carb flu" is not, in fact, "sugar withdrawal."lemurcat12 wrote: »Even though I'm putting really healthy and nourishing things in my body, I feel extremely tired and worn down. I'm sleeping better than I ever have before. Is this sugar withdrawal?
No, there's no such thing as sugar withdrawal (no more than there's food withdrawal just because starvation is unpleasant). Especially if you are eating sugar (which is in fruits and vegetables also).
....If you have actually cut carbs dramatically, it could be low carb flu, too.
.
Those two statements are a bit contradictory, IMO. There is a sugar withdrawal for many as there body adapts to a new way of using fuels. It is called the low carb flu when carbs are dropped a great deal. It is also called fat or keto adaptation.
This. Low carb flu is indeed the body adjusting to using ketones rather than glucose (this is not the same as fat adaption -- people not in ketosis can still burn fat, of course). But that doesn't mean that there was something "addictive" or maladapted about the body's use of glucose. If the keto flu is "sugar withdrawal," than the symptoms of starvation are "food withdrawal" and dehydration is "water withdrawal."
Wouldn't that be:
The symptoms of food withdrawal - starvation
The symptoms of water withdrawal - dehydration
?
Nope.
Starving is your body reacting to not having food. The unpleasant symptoms associated with it (hungry, weakness, weight loss, eventual death) are not, of course, normally considered a form of withdrawal, but it would make as much sense to call them such as it does to call the keto flu "sugar withdrawal."
We normally apply "withdrawal" to the body's reaction to being without something bad for us. But the reason you get keto flu isn't that you were "addicted to sugar" or that sugar (here, glucose) is bad for us or we are dependent on it in a way that is contrary to our well-being. It's a normal reaction due to the fact that the human body normal runs on glucose and seems to prefer to do so.
I don't think we've established that OP is likely to have keto flu, as it's not clear that he's gone low carb, just that he's cut down on junk food.
For close to half of the population, the bolded is indeed true. Sugar is bad for us, we are dependent on it until fat adapted, and it is contrary to our well being. I do not think that human bodies run best on glucose, but I do believe it uses glucose first because it needs to get the glucose out of the blood stream before damage is done.
I don't know of a single health issue that could be partially caused by a ketogenic diet, but I know of many health problems that may be caused (partiall) by too much glucose.
I know OP is probably not eating a ketogenic diet, but he is cutting sugar and feeling it. I doubt it is in his head.
Sugar is also fundamentally required for human life, like water or salt.
I have a hard time imagining why animal that's not too distant ancestors were frugivores would run better using fat for fuel than sugar.
Claiming glucose is like heroin, since the body prefers to run on glucose than other sources of energy, when every traditional human diet we know of is NOT ketogenic, is such a self-evidently silly position that it needs no response.
Again, if keto flu=withdrawal, the claim is not that excessive sugar is bad for us (which is obviously true) or even that sugar in any quantity is bad for us (which is generally false, certainly for normal people not on drugs like steroids or with a preexisting health condition or both), but that it is bad for us for the body to use glucose as fuel -- which is the norm in most if not all human populations.
This might also be a good time to mention that the Inuit, the one population I know of that eats traditionally ketogenic, apparently have a significantly shorter life span than the national averages of most first world countries, and it's not getting better.
Might have nothing to do with their diet, but worth mentioning anyway.
It's my understanding they don't eat their traditional diet anymore. And when they did an extremely harsh climate and lack of modern day medical care impacted lifespan but now Type 2 diabetes is on the rise with all the associated causes of death that goes with it.
Counterpoint: Epigenetics. What is good for them might not be good for everyone who didn't come from generations of high fat, low carb living. Who knows?
Nobody knows enough about any of this. Best to research as much as possible, then experiment to find what works best for you.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
Sugar is a toxin in the same sense water is toxin, or salt is a toxin. Everything is poison if the dose is high enough.lemurcat12 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
They're only contradictory if one presumes that "sugar withdrawal" == "low carb flu." It's certainly possible that "low carb flu" is not, in fact, "sugar withdrawal."lemurcat12 wrote: »Even though I'm putting really healthy and nourishing things in my body, I feel extremely tired and worn down. I'm sleeping better than I ever have before. Is this sugar withdrawal?
No, there's no such thing as sugar withdrawal (no more than there's food withdrawal just because starvation is unpleasant). Especially if you are eating sugar (which is in fruits and vegetables also).
....If you have actually cut carbs dramatically, it could be low carb flu, too.
.
Those two statements are a bit contradictory, IMO. There is a sugar withdrawal for many as there body adapts to a new way of using fuels. It is called the low carb flu when carbs are dropped a great deal. It is also called fat or keto adaptation.
This. Low carb flu is indeed the body adjusting to using ketones rather than glucose (this is not the same as fat adaption -- people not in ketosis can still burn fat, of course). But that doesn't mean that there was something "addictive" or maladapted about the body's use of glucose. If the keto flu is "sugar withdrawal," than the symptoms of starvation are "food withdrawal" and dehydration is "water withdrawal."
I would disagree. You are exaggerating to try to make a point.
Withdrawal is the removal of something, often a toxin, when referring to health, or at the very least a less healthful, unnecessary substance, from your system and acclimating to a healthier set point. Sugar can be a toxin, diabetes wouldn't be as much of a problem is it wasn't.
Water and food are essential. Removing them is not what most would consider to be a withdrawal, but more of an attempt damaging one's health, not improving it.
JMOlemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
They're only contradictory if one presumes that "sugar withdrawal" == "low carb flu." It's certainly possible that "low carb flu" is not, in fact, "sugar withdrawal."lemurcat12 wrote: »Even though I'm putting really healthy and nourishing things in my body, I feel extremely tired and worn down. I'm sleeping better than I ever have before. Is this sugar withdrawal?
No, there's no such thing as sugar withdrawal (no more than there's food withdrawal just because starvation is unpleasant). Especially if you are eating sugar (which is in fruits and vegetables also).
....If you have actually cut carbs dramatically, it could be low carb flu, too.
.
Those two statements are a bit contradictory, IMO. There is a sugar withdrawal for many as there body adapts to a new way of using fuels. It is called the low carb flu when carbs are dropped a great deal. It is also called fat or keto adaptation.
This. Low carb flu is indeed the body adjusting to using ketones rather than glucose (this is not the same as fat adaption -- people not in ketosis can still burn fat, of course). But that doesn't mean that there was something "addictive" or maladapted about the body's use of glucose. If the keto flu is "sugar withdrawal," than the symptoms of starvation are "food withdrawal" and dehydration is "water withdrawal."
Wouldn't that be:
The symptoms of food withdrawal - starvation
The symptoms of water withdrawal - dehydration
?
Nope.
Starving is your body reacting to not having food. The unpleasant symptoms associated with it (hungry, weakness, weight loss, eventual death) are not, of course, normally considered a form of withdrawal, but it would make as much sense to call them such as it does to call the keto flu "sugar withdrawal."
We normally apply "withdrawal" to the body's reaction to being without something bad for us. But the reason you get keto flu isn't that you were "addicted to sugar" or that sugar (here, glucose) is bad for us or we are dependent on it in a way that is contrary to our well-being. It's a normal reaction due to the fact that the human body normal runs on glucose and seems to prefer to do so.
I don't think we've established that OP is likely to have keto flu, as it's not clear that he's gone low carb, just that he's cut down on junk food.
For close to half of the population, the bolded is indeed true. Sugar is bad for us, we are dependent on it until fat adapted, and it is contrary to our well being. I do not think that human bodies run best on glucose, but I do believe it uses glucose first because it needs to get the glucose out of the blood stream before damage is done.
I don't know of a single health issue that could be partially caused by a ketogenic diet, but I know of many health problems that may be caused (partiall) by too much glucose.
I know OP is probably not eating a ketogenic diet, but he is cutting sugar and feeling it. I doubt it is in his head.
Sugar is also fundamentally required for human life, like water or salt.
I have a hard time imagining why animal that's not too distant ancestors were frugivores would run better using fat for fuel than sugar.
Claiming glucose is like heroin, since the body prefers to run on glucose than other sources of energy, when every traditional human diet we know of is NOT ketogenic, is such a self-evidently silly position that it needs no response.
Again, if keto flu=withdrawal, the claim is not that excessive sugar is bad for us (which is obviously true) or even that sugar in any quantity is bad for us (which is generally false, certainly for normal people not on drugs like steroids or with a preexisting health condition or both), but that it is bad for us for the body to use glucose as fuel -- which is the norm in most if not all human populations.
This might also be a good time to mention that the Inuit, the one population I know of that eats traditionally ketogenic, apparently have a significantly shorter life span than the national averages of most first world countries, and it's not getting better.
Might have nothing to do with their diet, but worth mentioning anyway.
It's my understanding they don't eat their traditional diet anymore. And when they did an extremely harsh climate and lack of modern day medical care impacted lifespan but now Type 2 diabetes is on the rise with all the associated causes of death that goes with it.
Counterpoint: Epigenetics. What is good for them might not be good for everyone who didn't come from generations of high fat, low carb living. Who knows?
Nobody knows enough about any of this. Best to research as much as possible, then experiment to find what works best for you.
Biologically speaking, there's some bodily functions that just can't run on ketones, because they're vital for you gluconeogenesis is a thing your body can do.
Which means your body's absolute dependence on glucose is the thing that makes it even possible for you to go on an extremely low carb to no-carb diet to begin with.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
Sugar is a toxin in the same sense water is toxin, or salt is a toxin. Everything is poison if the dose is high enough.lemurcat12 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
They're only contradictory if one presumes that "sugar withdrawal" == "low carb flu." It's certainly possible that "low carb flu" is not, in fact, "sugar withdrawal."lemurcat12 wrote: »Even though I'm putting really healthy and nourishing things in my body, I feel extremely tired and worn down. I'm sleeping better than I ever have before. Is this sugar withdrawal?
No, there's no such thing as sugar withdrawal (no more than there's food withdrawal just because starvation is unpleasant). Especially if you are eating sugar (which is in fruits and vegetables also).
....If you have actually cut carbs dramatically, it could be low carb flu, too.
.
Those two statements are a bit contradictory, IMO. There is a sugar withdrawal for many as there body adapts to a new way of using fuels. It is called the low carb flu when carbs are dropped a great deal. It is also called fat or keto adaptation.
This. Low carb flu is indeed the body adjusting to using ketones rather than glucose (this is not the same as fat adaption -- people not in ketosis can still burn fat, of course). But that doesn't mean that there was something "addictive" or maladapted about the body's use of glucose. If the keto flu is "sugar withdrawal," than the symptoms of starvation are "food withdrawal" and dehydration is "water withdrawal."
I would disagree. You are exaggerating to try to make a point.
Withdrawal is the removal of something, often a toxin, when referring to health, or at the very least a less healthful, unnecessary substance, from your system and acclimating to a healthier set point. Sugar can be a toxin, diabetes wouldn't be as much of a problem is it wasn't.
Water and food are essential. Removing them is not what most would consider to be a withdrawal, but more of an attempt damaging one's health, not improving it.
JMOlemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
They're only contradictory if one presumes that "sugar withdrawal" == "low carb flu." It's certainly possible that "low carb flu" is not, in fact, "sugar withdrawal."lemurcat12 wrote: »Even though I'm putting really healthy and nourishing things in my body, I feel extremely tired and worn down. I'm sleeping better than I ever have before. Is this sugar withdrawal?
No, there's no such thing as sugar withdrawal (no more than there's food withdrawal just because starvation is unpleasant). Especially if you are eating sugar (which is in fruits and vegetables also).
....If you have actually cut carbs dramatically, it could be low carb flu, too.
.
Those two statements are a bit contradictory, IMO. There is a sugar withdrawal for many as there body adapts to a new way of using fuels. It is called the low carb flu when carbs are dropped a great deal. It is also called fat or keto adaptation.
This. Low carb flu is indeed the body adjusting to using ketones rather than glucose (this is not the same as fat adaption -- people not in ketosis can still burn fat, of course). But that doesn't mean that there was something "addictive" or maladapted about the body's use of glucose. If the keto flu is "sugar withdrawal," than the symptoms of starvation are "food withdrawal" and dehydration is "water withdrawal."
Wouldn't that be:
The symptoms of food withdrawal - starvation
The symptoms of water withdrawal - dehydration
?
Nope.
Starving is your body reacting to not having food. The unpleasant symptoms associated with it (hungry, weakness, weight loss, eventual death) are not, of course, normally considered a form of withdrawal, but it would make as much sense to call them such as it does to call the keto flu "sugar withdrawal."
We normally apply "withdrawal" to the body's reaction to being without something bad for us. But the reason you get keto flu isn't that you were "addicted to sugar" or that sugar (here, glucose) is bad for us or we are dependent on it in a way that is contrary to our well-being. It's a normal reaction due to the fact that the human body normal runs on glucose and seems to prefer to do so.
I don't think we've established that OP is likely to have keto flu, as it's not clear that he's gone low carb, just that he's cut down on junk food.
For close to half of the population, the bolded is indeed true. Sugar is bad for us, we are dependent on it until fat adapted, and it is contrary to our well being. I do not think that human bodies run best on glucose, but I do believe it uses glucose first because it needs to get the glucose out of the blood stream before damage is done.
I don't know of a single health issue that could be partially caused by a ketogenic diet, but I know of many health problems that may be caused (partiall) by too much glucose.
I know OP is probably not eating a ketogenic diet, but he is cutting sugar and feeling it. I doubt it is in his head.
Sugar is also fundamentally required for human life, like water or salt.
I have a hard time imagining why animal that's not too distant ancestors were frugivores would run better using fat for fuel than sugar.
Claiming glucose is like heroin, since the body prefers to run on glucose than other sources of energy, when every traditional human diet we know of is NOT ketogenic, is such a self-evidently silly position that it needs no response.
Again, if keto flu=withdrawal, the claim is not that excessive sugar is bad for us (which is obviously true) or even that sugar in any quantity is bad for us (which is generally false, certainly for normal people not on drugs like steroids or with a preexisting health condition or both), but that it is bad for us for the body to use glucose as fuel -- which is the norm in most if not all human populations.
This might also be a good time to mention that the Inuit, the one population I know of that eats traditionally ketogenic, apparently have a significantly shorter life span than the national averages of most first world countries, and it's not getting better.
Might have nothing to do with their diet, but worth mentioning anyway.
It's my understanding they don't eat their traditional diet anymore. And when they did an extremely harsh climate and lack of modern day medical care impacted lifespan but now Type 2 diabetes is on the rise with all the associated causes of death that goes with it.
Counterpoint: Epigenetics. What is good for them might not be good for everyone who didn't come from generations of high fat, low carb living. Who knows?
Nobody knows enough about any of this. Best to research as much as possible, then experiment to find what works best for you.
Biologically speaking, there's some bodily functions that just can't run on ketones, because they're vital for you gluconeogenesis is a thing your body can do.
Which means your body's absolute dependence on glucose is the thing that makes it even possible for you to go on an extremely low carb to no-carb diet to begin with.
My body is dependent on glucose. My liver makes it. If I eat too much protein my body turns that into glucose as well. I see no reason I can't drop my carbs to zero and be perfectly fine. But since my coffee and tea has miniscule carbs in it, I won't be doing that to find out!0 -
I'm 34. Weigh 295 and I'm just shy of 6'3. I'm eating between 1700 and 2000 calories a day and exercising for about 1.5 hours a day
Hi
FWIW when I started my weight loss journey at the end of January 2014 I was losing on 1800 calories a day with no exercise. Now this summer I started walking and am still losing at 1700 +- calories a day.
Depending on Your exercise level You may be under eating. Are You taking any supplements?
I am now up to 2.75 miles a day, sometimes more, I averaged 1.5 pounds per week lost over the last 4 weeks. I do eat no sugar any more however I do eat Fruit three times a day. I spread my calories out eating over 6 or 7 times a day. I try for every 2.5 hours for either a meal or a snack.
BTW just in case, How is Your Blood Sugar, have You had blood work including the A1C and Blood Glucose levels?
Good Luck
Roger
0 -
What is this Unknown person and why does it keep spamming this thread? Spam is not healthy, okay?0
-
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
Sugar is a toxin in the same sense water is toxin, or salt is a toxin. Everything is poison if the dose is high enough.lemurcat12 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
They're only contradictory if one presumes that "sugar withdrawal" == "low carb flu." It's certainly possible that "low carb flu" is not, in fact, "sugar withdrawal."lemurcat12 wrote: »Even though I'm putting really healthy and nourishing things in my body, I feel extremely tired and worn down. I'm sleeping better than I ever have before. Is this sugar withdrawal?
No, there's no such thing as sugar withdrawal (no more than there's food withdrawal just because starvation is unpleasant). Especially if you are eating sugar (which is in fruits and vegetables also).
....If you have actually cut carbs dramatically, it could be low carb flu, too.
.
Those two statements are a bit contradictory, IMO. There is a sugar withdrawal for many as there body adapts to a new way of using fuels. It is called the low carb flu when carbs are dropped a great deal. It is also called fat or keto adaptation.
This. Low carb flu is indeed the body adjusting to using ketones rather than glucose (this is not the same as fat adaption -- people not in ketosis can still burn fat, of course). But that doesn't mean that there was something "addictive" or maladapted about the body's use of glucose. If the keto flu is "sugar withdrawal," than the symptoms of starvation are "food withdrawal" and dehydration is "water withdrawal."
I would disagree. You are exaggerating to try to make a point.
Withdrawal is the removal of something, often a toxin, when referring to health, or at the very least a less healthful, unnecessary substance, from your system and acclimating to a healthier set point. Sugar can be a toxin, diabetes wouldn't be as much of a problem is it wasn't.
Water and food are essential. Removing them is not what most would consider to be a withdrawal, but more of an attempt damaging one's health, not improving it.
JMOlemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
They're only contradictory if one presumes that "sugar withdrawal" == "low carb flu." It's certainly possible that "low carb flu" is not, in fact, "sugar withdrawal."lemurcat12 wrote: »Even though I'm putting really healthy and nourishing things in my body, I feel extremely tired and worn down. I'm sleeping better than I ever have before. Is this sugar withdrawal?
No, there's no such thing as sugar withdrawal (no more than there's food withdrawal just because starvation is unpleasant). Especially if you are eating sugar (which is in fruits and vegetables also).
....If you have actually cut carbs dramatically, it could be low carb flu, too.
.
Those two statements are a bit contradictory, IMO. There is a sugar withdrawal for many as there body adapts to a new way of using fuels. It is called the low carb flu when carbs are dropped a great deal. It is also called fat or keto adaptation.
This. Low carb flu is indeed the body adjusting to using ketones rather than glucose (this is not the same as fat adaption -- people not in ketosis can still burn fat, of course). But that doesn't mean that there was something "addictive" or maladapted about the body's use of glucose. If the keto flu is "sugar withdrawal," than the symptoms of starvation are "food withdrawal" and dehydration is "water withdrawal."
Wouldn't that be:
The symptoms of food withdrawal - starvation
The symptoms of water withdrawal - dehydration
?
Nope.
Starving is your body reacting to not having food. The unpleasant symptoms associated with it (hungry, weakness, weight loss, eventual death) are not, of course, normally considered a form of withdrawal, but it would make as much sense to call them such as it does to call the keto flu "sugar withdrawal."
We normally apply "withdrawal" to the body's reaction to being without something bad for us. But the reason you get keto flu isn't that you were "addicted to sugar" or that sugar (here, glucose) is bad for us or we are dependent on it in a way that is contrary to our well-being. It's a normal reaction due to the fact that the human body normal runs on glucose and seems to prefer to do so.
I don't think we've established that OP is likely to have keto flu, as it's not clear that he's gone low carb, just that he's cut down on junk food.
For close to half of the population, the bolded is indeed true. Sugar is bad for us, we are dependent on it until fat adapted, and it is contrary to our well being. I do not think that human bodies run best on glucose, but I do believe it uses glucose first because it needs to get the glucose out of the blood stream before damage is done.
I don't know of a single health issue that could be partially caused by a ketogenic diet, but I know of many health problems that may be caused (partiall) by too much glucose.
I know OP is probably not eating a ketogenic diet, but he is cutting sugar and feeling it. I doubt it is in his head.
Sugar is also fundamentally required for human life, like water or salt.
I have a hard time imagining why animal that's not too distant ancestors were frugivores would run better using fat for fuel than sugar.
Claiming glucose is like heroin, since the body prefers to run on glucose than other sources of energy, when every traditional human diet we know of is NOT ketogenic, is such a self-evidently silly position that it needs no response.
Again, if keto flu=withdrawal, the claim is not that excessive sugar is bad for us (which is obviously true) or even that sugar in any quantity is bad for us (which is generally false, certainly for normal people not on drugs like steroids or with a preexisting health condition or both), but that it is bad for us for the body to use glucose as fuel -- which is the norm in most if not all human populations.
This might also be a good time to mention that the Inuit, the one population I know of that eats traditionally ketogenic, apparently have a significantly shorter life span than the national averages of most first world countries, and it's not getting better.
Might have nothing to do with their diet, but worth mentioning anyway.
It's my understanding they don't eat their traditional diet anymore. And when they did an extremely harsh climate and lack of modern day medical care impacted lifespan but now Type 2 diabetes is on the rise with all the associated causes of death that goes with it.
Counterpoint: Epigenetics. What is good for them might not be good for everyone who didn't come from generations of high fat, low carb living. Who knows?
Nobody knows enough about any of this. Best to research as much as possible, then experiment to find what works best for you.
Biologically speaking, there's some bodily functions that just can't run on ketones, because they're vital for you gluconeogenesis is a thing your body can do.
Which means your body's absolute dependence on glucose is the thing that makes it even possible for you to go on an extremely low carb to no-carb diet to begin with.
My body is dependent on glucose. My liver makes it. If I eat too much protein my body turns that into glucose as well. I see no reason I can't drop my carbs to zero and be perfectly fine. But since my coffee and tea has miniscule carbs in it, I won't be doing that to find out!
Yeah, that's what I said. Gluconeogenesis is your body producing glucose. And thank god it can do that, your body's glycogen stores are very limited even on a high carb diet, if you couldn't produce glucose you might just die after a few days of very low carb.0 -
-
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
Sugar is a toxin in the same sense water is toxin, or salt is a toxin. Everything is poison if the dose is high enough.lemurcat12 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
They're only contradictory if one presumes that "sugar withdrawal" == "low carb flu." It's certainly possible that "low carb flu" is not, in fact, "sugar withdrawal."lemurcat12 wrote: »Even though I'm putting really healthy and nourishing things in my body, I feel extremely tired and worn down. I'm sleeping better than I ever have before. Is this sugar withdrawal?
No, there's no such thing as sugar withdrawal (no more than there's food withdrawal just because starvation is unpleasant). Especially if you are eating sugar (which is in fruits and vegetables also).
....If you have actually cut carbs dramatically, it could be low carb flu, too.
.
Those two statements are a bit contradictory, IMO. There is a sugar withdrawal for many as there body adapts to a new way of using fuels. It is called the low carb flu when carbs are dropped a great deal. It is also called fat or keto adaptation.
This. Low carb flu is indeed the body adjusting to using ketones rather than glucose (this is not the same as fat adaption -- people not in ketosis can still burn fat, of course). But that doesn't mean that there was something "addictive" or maladapted about the body's use of glucose. If the keto flu is "sugar withdrawal," than the symptoms of starvation are "food withdrawal" and dehydration is "water withdrawal."
I would disagree. You are exaggerating to try to make a point.
Withdrawal is the removal of something, often a toxin, when referring to health, or at the very least a less healthful, unnecessary substance, from your system and acclimating to a healthier set point. Sugar can be a toxin, diabetes wouldn't be as much of a problem is it wasn't.
Water and food are essential. Removing them is not what most would consider to be a withdrawal, but more of an attempt damaging one's health, not improving it.
JMOlemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
They're only contradictory if one presumes that "sugar withdrawal" == "low carb flu." It's certainly possible that "low carb flu" is not, in fact, "sugar withdrawal."lemurcat12 wrote: »Even though I'm putting really healthy and nourishing things in my body, I feel extremely tired and worn down. I'm sleeping better than I ever have before. Is this sugar withdrawal?
No, there's no such thing as sugar withdrawal (no more than there's food withdrawal just because starvation is unpleasant). Especially if you are eating sugar (which is in fruits and vegetables also).
....If you have actually cut carbs dramatically, it could be low carb flu, too.
.
Those two statements are a bit contradictory, IMO. There is a sugar withdrawal for many as there body adapts to a new way of using fuels. It is called the low carb flu when carbs are dropped a great deal. It is also called fat or keto adaptation.
This. Low carb flu is indeed the body adjusting to using ketones rather than glucose (this is not the same as fat adaption -- people not in ketosis can still burn fat, of course). But that doesn't mean that there was something "addictive" or maladapted about the body's use of glucose. If the keto flu is "sugar withdrawal," than the symptoms of starvation are "food withdrawal" and dehydration is "water withdrawal."
Wouldn't that be:
The symptoms of food withdrawal - starvation
The symptoms of water withdrawal - dehydration
?
Nope.
Starving is your body reacting to not having food. The unpleasant symptoms associated with it (hungry, weakness, weight loss, eventual death) are not, of course, normally considered a form of withdrawal, but it would make as much sense to call them such as it does to call the keto flu "sugar withdrawal."
We normally apply "withdrawal" to the body's reaction to being without something bad for us. But the reason you get keto flu isn't that you were "addicted to sugar" or that sugar (here, glucose) is bad for us or we are dependent on it in a way that is contrary to our well-being. It's a normal reaction due to the fact that the human body normal runs on glucose and seems to prefer to do so.
I don't think we've established that OP is likely to have keto flu, as it's not clear that he's gone low carb, just that he's cut down on junk food.
For close to half of the population, the bolded is indeed true. Sugar is bad for us, we are dependent on it until fat adapted, and it is contrary to our well being. I do not think that human bodies run best on glucose, but I do believe it uses glucose first because it needs to get the glucose out of the blood stream before damage is done.
I don't know of a single health issue that could be partially caused by a ketogenic diet, but I know of many health problems that may be caused (partiall) by too much glucose.
I know OP is probably not eating a ketogenic diet, but he is cutting sugar and feeling it. I doubt it is in his head.
Sugar is also fundamentally required for human life, like water or salt.
I have a hard time imagining why animal that's not too distant ancestors were frugivores would run better using fat for fuel than sugar.
Claiming glucose is like heroin, since the body prefers to run on glucose than other sources of energy, when every traditional human diet we know of is NOT ketogenic, is such a self-evidently silly position that it needs no response.
Again, if keto flu=withdrawal, the claim is not that excessive sugar is bad for us (which is obviously true) or even that sugar in any quantity is bad for us (which is generally false, certainly for normal people not on drugs like steroids or with a preexisting health condition or both), but that it is bad for us for the body to use glucose as fuel -- which is the norm in most if not all human populations.
This might also be a good time to mention that the Inuit, the one population I know of that eats traditionally ketogenic, apparently have a significantly shorter life span than the national averages of most first world countries, and it's not getting better.
Might have nothing to do with their diet, but worth mentioning anyway.
It's my understanding they don't eat their traditional diet anymore. And when they did an extremely harsh climate and lack of modern day medical care impacted lifespan but now Type 2 diabetes is on the rise with all the associated causes of death that goes with it.
Counterpoint: Epigenetics. What is good for them might not be good for everyone who didn't come from generations of high fat, low carb living. Who knows?
Nobody knows enough about any of this. Best to research as much as possible, then experiment to find what works best for you.
Biologically speaking, there's some bodily functions that just can't run on ketones, because they're vital for you gluconeogenesis is a thing your body can do.
Which means your body's absolute dependence on glucose is the thing that makes it even possible for you to go on an extremely low carb to no-carb diet to begin with.
My body is dependent on glucose. My liver makes it. If I eat too much protein my body turns that into glucose as well. I see no reason I can't drop my carbs to zero and be perfectly fine. But since my coffee and tea has miniscule carbs in it, I won't be doing that to find out!
Yeah, that's what I said. Gluconeogenesis is your body producing glucose. And thank god it can do that, your body's glycogen stores are very limited even on a high carb diet, if you couldn't produce glucose you might just die after a few days of very low carb.
Sorry, I misunderstood you. I had someone on another forum try very hard once to convince me that I would sicken and die if my carbs were truly zero. But this person couldn't back up the claim with any evidence at all. I thought about trying it, but my coffee addiction wouldn't let me!
0 -
-
I'm 34. Weigh 295 and I'm just shy of 6'3. I'm eating between 1700 and 2000 calories a day and exercising for about 1.5 hours a day
Are you eating back some of those exercise calories? You have a decent amount of weight to lose and can probably sustain a 1000 cal deficit from your maintenance level to lose 2 lbs/week, but if you're exercising that much I would imagine you should be eating more.
It's great that you are becoming more cognizant about your diet and are trying to incorporate more nutrient dense foods into it. As you've seen from the responses there are a lot of opinions about whether or not sugar is addictive. I'm of the mindset that no individual food or food group is bad (except trans fats and anything that someone has a medical reason to avoid) and that by just adding the "healthy" foods but saving some room for treats, you improve the overall balance of your diet but do it in a way to avoid dramatic negative effects like the ones you've described, not to mention giving yourself some leeway for foods you truly enjoy.
And with a pregnant wife, you're going to need to allow for ice cream now and again...
0 -
frankiesgirlie wrote: »I do believe sugar is addictive and one can have symptoms that i characterize as the body going through withdrawal. Sugar is highly addictive. The more you eat, the more you crave. When I drastically reduced my sugar intake, it took about 2-3 months before I stopped having symptoms.
Whether you want to believe that you are experiencing withdrawal or sugar is addictive, I will say that many agree that yes, you can feel really icky for a while when you initially cut back on sugar. Hang in there!! It gets so much better once you get past this!
Absolutely. I was just on another thread where I was told by 'lemurcat12' that my sugar cravings were all in my head. Sugar is a highly addictive substance,and I'm trying to find my way out of it.frankiesgirlie wrote: »I do believe sugar is addictive and one can have symptoms that i characterize as the body going through withdrawal. Sugar is highly addictive. The more you eat, the more you crave. When I drastically reduced my sugar intake, it took about 2-3 months before I stopped having symptoms.
Whether you want to believe that you are experiencing withdrawal or sugar is addictive, I will say that many agree that yes, you can feel really icky for a while when you initially cut back on sugar. Hang in there!! It gets so much better once you get past this!
Absolutely. I was just on another thread where I was told by 'lemurcat12' that my sugar cravings were all in my head. Sugar is a highly addictive substance,and I'm trying to find my way out of it.
That is unfortunate that you went through that on another thread. I'm sorry.
How long have you been cutting back? How many grams of carbs and sugar do you eat a day? I also had to watch the places where sugar snuck in like salad dressings, ketchup, and other condiments.
Hopefully you're at the end of the hard part! It's nice to not love the taste of many sugary foods and snacks. Hang in there!0 -
frankiesgirlie wrote: »I do believe sugar is addictive and one can have symptoms that i characterize as the body going through withdrawal. Sugar is highly addictive. The more you eat, the more you crave. When I drastically reduced my sugar intake, it took about 2-3 months before I stopped having symptoms.
Whether you want to believe that you are experiencing withdrawal or sugar is addictive, I will say that many agree that yes, you can feel really icky for a while when you initially cut back on sugar. Hang in there!! It gets so much better once you get past this!
Absolutely. I was just on another thread where I was told by 'lemurcat12' that my sugar cravings were all in my head. Sugar is a highly addictive substance,and I'm trying to find my way out of it.
That's unfortunate that you dealt with that on another thread I'm sorry.
How long have you been cutting back? How many grams of sugar and carbs do you have? My doctor suggested thatfrankiesgirlie wrote: »I do believe sugar is addictive and one can have symptoms that i characterize as the body going through withdrawal. Sugar is highly addictive. The more you eat, the more you crave. When I drastically reduced my sugar intake, it took about 2-3 months before I stopped having symptoms.
Whether you want to believe that you are experiencing withdrawal or sugar is addictive, I will say that many agree that yes, you can feel really icky for a while when you initially cut back on sugar. Hang in there!! It gets so much better once you get past this!
Absolutely. I was just on another thread where I was told by 'lemurcat12' that my sugar cravings were all in my head. Sugar is a highly addictive substance,and I'm trying to find my way out of it.
That is unfortunate that you went through that on another thread. I'm sorry.
How long have you been cutting back? How many grams of carbs and sugar do you eat a day? I also had to watch the places where sugar snuck in like salad dressings, ketchup, and other condiments.
Hopefully you're at the end of the hard part! It's nice to not love the taste of many sugary foods and snacks. Hang in there!
Well it is all in your head. But human consciousness surfs on a sea of chemical reactions. The foods we consume are just one of the many things that affect those chemical reactions.
Want proof? How many people have you heard say they won't make important decisions while hungry or tired?0 -
Some people miss those sugar spikes0
-
Hey we have the best of both worths today on the forums...sugar withdrawl and addicted to sugar!!! You OPS better be messaging each other. ..the stars have aligned for a reason!!!0
-
OP, you had previously said that you did not cut out sugar, you just reduced it. Was there clarification of how many carbs you are actually still eating (sorry, I skipped over all the ridiculous fighting). If you're still eating a fair amount of carbs, the keto argument is pointless.
Some people don't do well on low carb others do great. Give changes you make 4-6 weeks, but if you're still feeling bad, you may do better with more carbs (although not necessarily more sugar). You mentioned that your sugars were from fats and sweets, but it's hard to tell exactly what you cut out. If you cut out sodas, you might also be experiencing side effects from reducing the caffeine you've been drinking too.
I'm not one to demonize food, and so I personally still include in my diet things that some people might consider "junk" (like ice cream), just in smaller amounts. I personally have not had any issues with withdrawal symptoms since I have not cut anything out entirely.
The other thing you should consider is are you getting enough of your other nutrients. Are you eating a wide variety of fruits and vegetables? Are you getting enough fats in your diet (since you seemed to mention cutting them along with sugar)?0 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
Sugar is a toxin in the same sense water is toxin, or salt is a toxin. Everything is poison if the dose is high enough.lemurcat12 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
They're only contradictory if one presumes that "sugar withdrawal" == "low carb flu." It's certainly possible that "low carb flu" is not, in fact, "sugar withdrawal."lemurcat12 wrote: »Even though I'm putting really healthy and nourishing things in my body, I feel extremely tired and worn down. I'm sleeping better than I ever have before. Is this sugar withdrawal?
No, there's no such thing as sugar withdrawal (no more than there's food withdrawal just because starvation is unpleasant). Especially if you are eating sugar (which is in fruits and vegetables also).
....If you have actually cut carbs dramatically, it could be low carb flu, too.
.
Those two statements are a bit contradictory, IMO. There is a sugar withdrawal for many as there body adapts to a new way of using fuels. It is called the low carb flu when carbs are dropped a great deal. It is also called fat or keto adaptation.
This. Low carb flu is indeed the body adjusting to using ketones rather than glucose (this is not the same as fat adaption -- people not in ketosis can still burn fat, of course). But that doesn't mean that there was something "addictive" or maladapted about the body's use of glucose. If the keto flu is "sugar withdrawal," than the symptoms of starvation are "food withdrawal" and dehydration is "water withdrawal."
I would disagree. You are exaggerating to try to make a point.
Withdrawal is the removal of something, often a toxin, when referring to health, or at the very least a less healthful, unnecessary substance, from your system and acclimating to a healthier set point. Sugar can be a toxin, diabetes wouldn't be as much of a problem is it wasn't.
Water and food are essential. Removing them is not what most would consider to be a withdrawal, but more of an attempt damaging one's health, not improving it.
JMOlemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
They're only contradictory if one presumes that "sugar withdrawal" == "low carb flu." It's certainly possible that "low carb flu" is not, in fact, "sugar withdrawal."lemurcat12 wrote: »Even though I'm putting really healthy and nourishing things in my body, I feel extremely tired and worn down. I'm sleeping better than I ever have before. Is this sugar withdrawal?
No, there's no such thing as sugar withdrawal (no more than there's food withdrawal just because starvation is unpleasant). Especially if you are eating sugar (which is in fruits and vegetables also).
....If you have actually cut carbs dramatically, it could be low carb flu, too.
.
Those two statements are a bit contradictory, IMO. There is a sugar withdrawal for many as there body adapts to a new way of using fuels. It is called the low carb flu when carbs are dropped a great deal. It is also called fat or keto adaptation.
This. Low carb flu is indeed the body adjusting to using ketones rather than glucose (this is not the same as fat adaption -- people not in ketosis can still burn fat, of course). But that doesn't mean that there was something "addictive" or maladapted about the body's use of glucose. If the keto flu is "sugar withdrawal," than the symptoms of starvation are "food withdrawal" and dehydration is "water withdrawal."
Wouldn't that be:
The symptoms of food withdrawal - starvation
The symptoms of water withdrawal - dehydration
?
Nope.
Starving is your body reacting to not having food. The unpleasant symptoms associated with it (hungry, weakness, weight loss, eventual death) are not, of course, normally considered a form of withdrawal, but it would make as much sense to call them such as it does to call the keto flu "sugar withdrawal."
We normally apply "withdrawal" to the body's reaction to being without something bad for us. But the reason you get keto flu isn't that you were "addicted to sugar" or that sugar (here, glucose) is bad for us or we are dependent on it in a way that is contrary to our well-being. It's a normal reaction due to the fact that the human body normal runs on glucose and seems to prefer to do so.
I don't think we've established that OP is likely to have keto flu, as it's not clear that he's gone low carb, just that he's cut down on junk food.
For close to half of the population, the bolded is indeed true. Sugar is bad for us, we are dependent on it until fat adapted, and it is contrary to our well being. I do not think that human bodies run best on glucose, but I do believe it uses glucose first because it needs to get the glucose out of the blood stream before damage is done.
I don't know of a single health issue that could be partially caused by a ketogenic diet, but I know of many health problems that may be caused (partiall) by too much glucose.
I know OP is probably not eating a ketogenic diet, but he is cutting sugar and feeling it. I doubt it is in his head.
Sugar is also fundamentally required for human life, like water or salt.
I have a hard time imagining why animal that's not too distant ancestors were frugivores would run better using fat for fuel than sugar.
Claiming glucose is like heroin, since the body prefers to run on glucose than other sources of energy, when every traditional human diet we know of is NOT ketogenic, is such a self-evidently silly position that it needs no response.
Again, if keto flu=withdrawal, the claim is not that excessive sugar is bad for us (which is obviously true) or even that sugar in any quantity is bad for us (which is generally false, certainly for normal people not on drugs like steroids or with a preexisting health condition or both), but that it is bad for us for the body to use glucose as fuel -- which is the norm in most if not all human populations.
This might also be a good time to mention that the Inuit, the one population I know of that eats traditionally ketogenic, apparently have a significantly shorter life span than the national averages of most first world countries, and it's not getting better.
Might have nothing to do with their diet, but worth mentioning anyway.
It's my understanding they don't eat their traditional diet anymore. And when they did an extremely harsh climate and lack of modern day medical care impacted lifespan but now Type 2 diabetes is on the rise with all the associated causes of death that goes with it.
Counterpoint: Epigenetics. What is good for them might not be good for everyone who didn't come from generations of high fat, low carb living. Who knows?
Nobody knows enough about any of this. Best to research as much as possible, then experiment to find what works best for you.
Biologically speaking, there's some bodily functions that just can't run on ketones, because they're vital for you gluconeogenesis is a thing your body can do.
Which means your body's absolute dependence on glucose is the thing that makes it even possible for you to go on an extremely low carb to no-carb diet to begin with.
My body is dependent on glucose. My liver makes it. If I eat too much protein my body turns that into glucose as well. I see no reason I can't drop my carbs to zero and be perfectly fine. But since my coffee and tea has miniscule carbs in it, I won't be doing that to find out!
Cutting out the vegetables to get there would likely lead to an unhealthy diet, however.
But since very few people even try to go to no carbs, the speculating about whether it's possible always strikes me as pretty irrelevant. I believe I've read that you need a little glucose to have the gluconeogenesis process happen, so I am not so sure about 0 carbs being feasible (and my understanding from the research I've seen is also that even the Inuit on their traditional diet likely were not ketogenic -- just on carb levels that would be ketogenic for most people).0 -
frankiesgirlie wrote: »I do believe sugar is addictive and one can have symptoms that i characterize as the body going through withdrawal. Sugar is highly addictive. The more you eat, the more you crave. When I drastically reduced my sugar intake, it took about 2-3 months before I stopped having symptoms.
Whether you want to believe that you are experiencing withdrawal or sugar is addictive, I will say that many agree that yes, you can feel really icky for a while when you initially cut back on sugar. Hang in there!! It gets so much better once you get past this!
Absolutely. I was just on another thread where I was told by 'lemurcat12' that my sugar cravings were all in my head. Sugar is a highly addictive substance,and I'm trying to find my way out of it.
That's not really what I said, although I certainly don't think sugar (or carbs, as I guess people are claiming here) are addictive. (Recall, someone can get carbs only from sources like fruit, vegetables, whole grains, and legumes and cut them out and get the keto flu. It has nothing to do with eating a healthy vs. unhealthy diet.)
I agreed with someone else who said the issue with cravings was frequently mental and I explained how I dealt with wanting to eat when I didn't think I should, and how that ultimately led the desire to mostly go away, because I thought my experiences might be helpful. If they weren't, maybe they will help someone else.
(I also mentioned that I quit eating added sugar for a few weeks as part of this, but also worked at changing my habits. If you really think you are addicted to sugar, it's a pretty simple answer -- don't eat it. Personally, I didn't quit all sugar since it wasn't an issue of addiction and I think fruits, vegetables, and dairy are part of a healthy diet.)0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
Sugar is a toxin in the same sense water is toxin, or salt is a toxin. Everything is poison if the dose is high enough.lemurcat12 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
They're only contradictory if one presumes that "sugar withdrawal" == "low carb flu." It's certainly possible that "low carb flu" is not, in fact, "sugar withdrawal."lemurcat12 wrote: »Even though I'm putting really healthy and nourishing things in my body, I feel extremely tired and worn down. I'm sleeping better than I ever have before. Is this sugar withdrawal?
No, there's no such thing as sugar withdrawal (no more than there's food withdrawal just because starvation is unpleasant). Especially if you are eating sugar (which is in fruits and vegetables also).
....If you have actually cut carbs dramatically, it could be low carb flu, too.
.
Those two statements are a bit contradictory, IMO. There is a sugar withdrawal for many as there body adapts to a new way of using fuels. It is called the low carb flu when carbs are dropped a great deal. It is also called fat or keto adaptation.
This. Low carb flu is indeed the body adjusting to using ketones rather than glucose (this is not the same as fat adaption -- people not in ketosis can still burn fat, of course). But that doesn't mean that there was something "addictive" or maladapted about the body's use of glucose. If the keto flu is "sugar withdrawal," than the symptoms of starvation are "food withdrawal" and dehydration is "water withdrawal."
I would disagree. You are exaggerating to try to make a point.
Withdrawal is the removal of something, often a toxin, when referring to health, or at the very least a less healthful, unnecessary substance, from your system and acclimating to a healthier set point. Sugar can be a toxin, diabetes wouldn't be as much of a problem is it wasn't.
Water and food are essential. Removing them is not what most would consider to be a withdrawal, but more of an attempt damaging one's health, not improving it.
JMOlemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
They're only contradictory if one presumes that "sugar withdrawal" == "low carb flu." It's certainly possible that "low carb flu" is not, in fact, "sugar withdrawal."lemurcat12 wrote: »Even though I'm putting really healthy and nourishing things in my body, I feel extremely tired and worn down. I'm sleeping better than I ever have before. Is this sugar withdrawal?
No, there's no such thing as sugar withdrawal (no more than there's food withdrawal just because starvation is unpleasant). Especially if you are eating sugar (which is in fruits and vegetables also).
....If you have actually cut carbs dramatically, it could be low carb flu, too.
.
Those two statements are a bit contradictory, IMO. There is a sugar withdrawal for many as there body adapts to a new way of using fuels. It is called the low carb flu when carbs are dropped a great deal. It is also called fat or keto adaptation.
This. Low carb flu is indeed the body adjusting to using ketones rather than glucose (this is not the same as fat adaption -- people not in ketosis can still burn fat, of course). But that doesn't mean that there was something "addictive" or maladapted about the body's use of glucose. If the keto flu is "sugar withdrawal," than the symptoms of starvation are "food withdrawal" and dehydration is "water withdrawal."
Wouldn't that be:
The symptoms of food withdrawal - starvation
The symptoms of water withdrawal - dehydration
?
Nope.
Starving is your body reacting to not having food. The unpleasant symptoms associated with it (hungry, weakness, weight loss, eventual death) are not, of course, normally considered a form of withdrawal, but it would make as much sense to call them such as it does to call the keto flu "sugar withdrawal."
We normally apply "withdrawal" to the body's reaction to being without something bad for us. But the reason you get keto flu isn't that you were "addicted to sugar" or that sugar (here, glucose) is bad for us or we are dependent on it in a way that is contrary to our well-being. It's a normal reaction due to the fact that the human body normal runs on glucose and seems to prefer to do so.
I don't think we've established that OP is likely to have keto flu, as it's not clear that he's gone low carb, just that he's cut down on junk food.
For close to half of the population, the bolded is indeed true. Sugar is bad for us, we are dependent on it until fat adapted, and it is contrary to our well being. I do not think that human bodies run best on glucose, but I do believe it uses glucose first because it needs to get the glucose out of the blood stream before damage is done.
I don't know of a single health issue that could be partially caused by a ketogenic diet, but I know of many health problems that may be caused (partiall) by too much glucose.
I know OP is probably not eating a ketogenic diet, but he is cutting sugar and feeling it. I doubt it is in his head.
Sugar is also fundamentally required for human life, like water or salt.
I have a hard time imagining why animal that's not too distant ancestors were frugivores would run better using fat for fuel than sugar.
Claiming glucose is like heroin, since the body prefers to run on glucose than other sources of energy, when every traditional human diet we know of is NOT ketogenic, is such a self-evidently silly position that it needs no response.
Again, if keto flu=withdrawal, the claim is not that excessive sugar is bad for us (which is obviously true) or even that sugar in any quantity is bad for us (which is generally false, certainly for normal people not on drugs like steroids or with a preexisting health condition or both), but that it is bad for us for the body to use glucose as fuel -- which is the norm in most if not all human populations.
This might also be a good time to mention that the Inuit, the one population I know of that eats traditionally ketogenic, apparently have a significantly shorter life span than the national averages of most first world countries, and it's not getting better.
Might have nothing to do with their diet, but worth mentioning anyway.
It's my understanding they don't eat their traditional diet anymore. And when they did an extremely harsh climate and lack of modern day medical care impacted lifespan but now Type 2 diabetes is on the rise with all the associated causes of death that goes with it.
Counterpoint: Epigenetics. What is good for them might not be good for everyone who didn't come from generations of high fat, low carb living. Who knows?
Nobody knows enough about any of this. Best to research as much as possible, then experiment to find what works best for you.
Biologically speaking, there's some bodily functions that just can't run on ketones, because they're vital for you gluconeogenesis is a thing your body can do.
Which means your body's absolute dependence on glucose is the thing that makes it even possible for you to go on an extremely low carb to no-carb diet to begin with.
My body is dependent on glucose. My liver makes it. If I eat too much protein my body turns that into glucose as well. I see no reason I can't drop my carbs to zero and be perfectly fine. But since my coffee and tea has miniscule carbs in it, I won't be doing that to find out!
Cutting out the vegetables to get there would likely lead to an unhealthy diet, however.
But since very few people even try to go to no carbs, the speculating about whether it's possible always strikes me as pretty irrelevant. I believe I've read that you need a little glucose to have the gluconeogenesis process happen, so I am not so sure about 0 carbs being feasible (and my understanding from the research I've seen is also that even the Inuit on their traditional diet likely were not ketogenic -- just on carb levels that would be ketogenic for most people).
I read that about the Inuit, too, but that seems like six of one half dozen of another. They did get berries and ate stomach contents of herbivores (fermented carbs I guess?) when they could, though.
I agree about the veggies, while I take a multivitamin I do like to get a few in here and there. I don't think multivitamins measure up.
Not sure about needing a little glucose intake, I'd love a study showing what the minimum is, and what would happen to someone who didn't get it (like would they drop dead on the spot, or survive for years and years?).0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
Sugar is a toxin in the same sense water is toxin, or salt is a toxin. Everything is poison if the dose is high enough.lemurcat12 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
They're only contradictory if one presumes that "sugar withdrawal" == "low carb flu." It's certainly possible that "low carb flu" is not, in fact, "sugar withdrawal."lemurcat12 wrote: »Even though I'm putting really healthy and nourishing things in my body, I feel extremely tired and worn down. I'm sleeping better than I ever have before. Is this sugar withdrawal?
No, there's no such thing as sugar withdrawal (no more than there's food withdrawal just because starvation is unpleasant). Especially if you are eating sugar (which is in fruits and vegetables also).
....If you have actually cut carbs dramatically, it could be low carb flu, too.
.
Those two statements are a bit contradictory, IMO. There is a sugar withdrawal for many as there body adapts to a new way of using fuels. It is called the low carb flu when carbs are dropped a great deal. It is also called fat or keto adaptation.
This. Low carb flu is indeed the body adjusting to using ketones rather than glucose (this is not the same as fat adaption -- people not in ketosis can still burn fat, of course). But that doesn't mean that there was something "addictive" or maladapted about the body's use of glucose. If the keto flu is "sugar withdrawal," than the symptoms of starvation are "food withdrawal" and dehydration is "water withdrawal."
I would disagree. You are exaggerating to try to make a point.
Withdrawal is the removal of something, often a toxin, when referring to health, or at the very least a less healthful, unnecessary substance, from your system and acclimating to a healthier set point. Sugar can be a toxin, diabetes wouldn't be as much of a problem is it wasn't.
Water and food are essential. Removing them is not what most would consider to be a withdrawal, but more of an attempt damaging one's health, not improving it.
JMOlemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
They're only contradictory if one presumes that "sugar withdrawal" == "low carb flu." It's certainly possible that "low carb flu" is not, in fact, "sugar withdrawal."lemurcat12 wrote: »Even though I'm putting really healthy and nourishing things in my body, I feel extremely tired and worn down. I'm sleeping better than I ever have before. Is this sugar withdrawal?
No, there's no such thing as sugar withdrawal (no more than there's food withdrawal just because starvation is unpleasant). Especially if you are eating sugar (which is in fruits and vegetables also).
....If you have actually cut carbs dramatically, it could be low carb flu, too.
.
Those two statements are a bit contradictory, IMO. There is a sugar withdrawal for many as there body adapts to a new way of using fuels. It is called the low carb flu when carbs are dropped a great deal. It is also called fat or keto adaptation.
This. Low carb flu is indeed the body adjusting to using ketones rather than glucose (this is not the same as fat adaption -- people not in ketosis can still burn fat, of course). But that doesn't mean that there was something "addictive" or maladapted about the body's use of glucose. If the keto flu is "sugar withdrawal," than the symptoms of starvation are "food withdrawal" and dehydration is "water withdrawal."
Wouldn't that be:
The symptoms of food withdrawal - starvation
The symptoms of water withdrawal - dehydration
?
Nope.
Starving is your body reacting to not having food. The unpleasant symptoms associated with it (hungry, weakness, weight loss, eventual death) are not, of course, normally considered a form of withdrawal, but it would make as much sense to call them such as it does to call the keto flu "sugar withdrawal."
We normally apply "withdrawal" to the body's reaction to being without something bad for us. But the reason you get keto flu isn't that you were "addicted to sugar" or that sugar (here, glucose) is bad for us or we are dependent on it in a way that is contrary to our well-being. It's a normal reaction due to the fact that the human body normal runs on glucose and seems to prefer to do so.
I don't think we've established that OP is likely to have keto flu, as it's not clear that he's gone low carb, just that he's cut down on junk food.
For close to half of the population, the bolded is indeed true. Sugar is bad for us, we are dependent on it until fat adapted, and it is contrary to our well being. I do not think that human bodies run best on glucose, but I do believe it uses glucose first because it needs to get the glucose out of the blood stream before damage is done.
I don't know of a single health issue that could be partially caused by a ketogenic diet, but I know of many health problems that may be caused (partiall) by too much glucose.
I know OP is probably not eating a ketogenic diet, but he is cutting sugar and feeling it. I doubt it is in his head.
Sugar is also fundamentally required for human life, like water or salt.
I have a hard time imagining why animal that's not too distant ancestors were frugivores would run better using fat for fuel than sugar.
Claiming glucose is like heroin, since the body prefers to run on glucose than other sources of energy, when every traditional human diet we know of is NOT ketogenic, is such a self-evidently silly position that it needs no response.
Again, if keto flu=withdrawal, the claim is not that excessive sugar is bad for us (which is obviously true) or even that sugar in any quantity is bad for us (which is generally false, certainly for normal people not on drugs like steroids or with a preexisting health condition or both), but that it is bad for us for the body to use glucose as fuel -- which is the norm in most if not all human populations.
This might also be a good time to mention that the Inuit, the one population I know of that eats traditionally ketogenic, apparently have a significantly shorter life span than the national averages of most first world countries, and it's not getting better.
Might have nothing to do with their diet, but worth mentioning anyway.
It's my understanding they don't eat their traditional diet anymore. And when they did an extremely harsh climate and lack of modern day medical care impacted lifespan but now Type 2 diabetes is on the rise with all the associated causes of death that goes with it.
Counterpoint: Epigenetics. What is good for them might not be good for everyone who didn't come from generations of high fat, low carb living. Who knows?
Nobody knows enough about any of this. Best to research as much as possible, then experiment to find what works best for you.
Biologically speaking, there's some bodily functions that just can't run on ketones, because they're vital for you gluconeogenesis is a thing your body can do.
Which means your body's absolute dependence on glucose is the thing that makes it even possible for you to go on an extremely low carb to no-carb diet to begin with.
My body is dependent on glucose. My liver makes it. If I eat too much protein my body turns that into glucose as well. I see no reason I can't drop my carbs to zero and be perfectly fine. But since my coffee and tea has miniscule carbs in it, I won't be doing that to find out!
Cutting out the vegetables to get there would likely lead to an unhealthy diet, however.
But since very few people even try to go to no carbs, the speculating about whether it's possible always strikes me as pretty irrelevant. I believe I've read that you need a little glucose to have the gluconeogenesis process happen, so I am not so sure about 0 carbs being feasible (and my understanding from the research I've seen is also that even the Inuit on their traditional diet likely were not ketogenic -- just on carb levels that would be ketogenic for most people).
I read that about the Inuit, too, but that seems like six of one half dozen of another. They did get berries and ate stomach contents of herbivores (fermented carbs I guess?) when they could, though.
I agree about the veggies, while I take a multivitamin I do like to get a few in here and there. I don't think multivitamins measure up.
Not sure about needing a little glucose intake, I'd love a study showing what the minimum is, and what would happen to someone who didn't get it (like would they drop dead on the spot, or survive for years and years?).
This is what I'm looking at and possibly misinterpreting (from a nutrition textbook):The adult brain requires approximately 140 g of glucose per day, accounting for 560 kcal.... Both amino acids and triglycerides can be used to synthesize glucose. [My note: so far, then, no carbs are needed.] Gluconeogenesis can be produce approximately 130 g of glucose per day in the absence of carbohydrate intake if other nutrients are abundant. Although the glucose deficit can be compensated by ketone-body metabolism, fat oxidation also requires glucose. Once glycogen stores are depleted, therefore, a minimum intake of 50 g of glucose in any form appears to be necessary. Glucose can be produced endogenously, and it thus is not considered an essential nutrient.... [but goes on about minimum level of carbs needed for a balanced diet]
How I'm reading this is that normally you can make the glucose you need and fill any deficit with ketones, but if you let your glycogen get totally depleted you need to consume some carbs for the process to be possible. But it doesn't seem all that clearly written, so it's possible I'm misunderstanding.
(It's not an issue I've been that interested in since I think trying to eat a no carb diet would be crazy and unhealthy whether or not one could theoretically do it. But I happened upon this when reading the book a little while ago and wondered about it.)0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.8K 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
- 413 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K 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