Maybe Sugar IS the Devil - US Goverment Diet Recommendations
Options
Replies
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Very reasonable guidelines.
Agreed. It translates to about 10tsp per day of added sugar which seems pretty darn doable.
Absolutely. If one truly IS moderating, it should be pretty doable. I have much less, but that's my preference.
What I found most objectionable about the article was that it suggested that it would be so difficult for most people. Even the article itself didn't support that conclusion -- basically, if you look at the stats about sodas it seems like many people who are above the recommended limit could go below it just by cutting out or way down on soda or energy drinks and given averages that probably others are likely to be below it already.
And that's without even focusing on sugary cereals or packaged sweets, which a lot of people could probably easily cut down on.
Sure a lot of people could do it easily. Probably just an many or more would have a very hard time giving these things up. Just reading all the 'sugar addiction' and 'how do I give up soda' threads on this site would suggest it's not easy for a lot of people.0 -
Its really SAD to see (with all the information available today just a few clicks away) that some people still try to convince themselves that sugar can be good for you. There is absolutely nothing good about sugar in any form, we can tolerate loads of sugar yes, glucose is after all "biological fuel" but we should not be eating anything at all with sugar on the ingredients list.
This is the food industry that has been cleverly programming society for years and has got us all hooked on the stuff, all they need to do is keep adding sugar to all their new products and keep us addicted so we can keep buying more of their crap products, happy to say I'm 5 years clean, Had a few relapses perhaps every now and then (cough cough Christmas cough cough) but I know I'm never gonna be a full on addict ever again. Good luck to all of you.
I Vote for Banning Sugar!
http://www.naturalnews.com/047495_sugar_saccharin_addiction.html
sugar addiction has never been proven in human trials.
yes, sugar can be a part of a healthy diet as long as one is hitting micro nutrient goals and is within their calorie allotment.
So I assume that you do not eat bread, vegetables, fruits, etc, because sugar is bad? Are you also calling for a ban on fruit and vegetables, because "sugar is bad"?
Spot on! I dont eat bread, pasta, don't drink milk, pretty much any form of sugar and yes I stay far away from sugary vegetables and fruits, you cant really pull sugar out of vegetables and you cant go without eating vegetables so I guess you got me there, I eat sugar in vegetables and some fruits.
Sugar addiction hasn't been proven in human trials because any study that threatens the food industry is shutdown before it can even make it to public eye, most people are so dam clueless how addicted they are, just look next time you go shopping how much sugar is in the trollies, on the shelves, it's everywhere.
when the body doesn't have enough sugar in the blood it has many ways of producing sugar from fats and even proteins, I'm very active and fit, concious of what goes into my body and how I exercise, I've never needed sugars even when running the 10K charity races I attend 3-4 times per year.
The real lie you have been programmed to believe is that sugar can be good for you. why dont you try go zero sugar for a couple weeks and see how you feel, when you try raise arguments promoting sugars trust me I know what you are going through, I was there once, its the addiction talking, kick it and you'll feel a million times better, you wont need to watch your weight and your body will look after itself.
Or just ignore my advice and convince yourself that sugar is ok, and that these food giants are looking out for your health and not just worried about profits and shareholders, convince yourself that you are doing great just the way you are, I suspect that most if not all people suffering from some form of metobolic disease thought the same thing before they were diagnosed, Nobody is going to care about your health over their profits or the economy. Take some responsibility and read books, (you can start with "Pure, White and deadly"), the information is all over the web, you want to be truly healthy and live a long disease free healthy life then there's nothing stopping you.
If you want to keep eating sugar becuase it tastes nice and makes you feel good then go ahead, but thats all you eating it for, but just know it comes at a hefty price in the long term.
Sorry for stepping on people toes here, I dont post on these forums I just saw this post and it pains me to see how addicted society is to this stuff, thought even if I help 1 person move to the path of kicking the habit it would be worth this post. good luck guys, wish you all a long and healthy life
You aren't really stepping on anyone's toes. Your argument is like if someone tries to convince the board that 2+2=5. Your argument is so far wrong that it is too laughable to step on anyone's toes.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
Not sure what you mean, but I would not assume a rule for one food applies to all. So I think, no?
There's fats in avocados, nuts etc. so no need to add oil to your steak. That's the same logic is what I'm saying.
Sorry I'm just not getting your point. What does this have to do with not adding sugar to fruit?0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
Not sure what you mean, but I would not assume a rule for one food applies to all. So I think, no?
There's fats in avocados, nuts etc. so no need to add oil to your steak. That's the same logic is what I'm saying.
Sorry I'm just getting your point. What does this have to do with not adding sugar to fruit?
Seriously? How do you not get what he is saying? Why is it okay for added fats, but not added sugars?
0 -
My BG has actually been determined by my doctor to be too high.ForecasterJason wrote: »
I get that, but statistical associations don't always hold true in all cases. Recent blood tests have revealed that I do have BG levels that are too high, and I feel confident that it's not because I'm eating too much saturated fat (I don't eat that much). But I do know that my diet has had generous amounts of carbs, and I think it's reasonable to assume that at times it's probably been too many for my body to handle at once.ForecasterJason wrote: »
His point was sugar spiking blood sugar, not protein. I know protein has been shown to raise insulin, but the real issue is high blood glucose leading to insulin resistance. And blood glucose won't be spiked as much from protein as from carbs.Sugar spikes blood sugar. Do that too often or too much, and insulin resistance results. Inflammation follows. When you are 100-110 lbs overweight for years like I was, IR is a big deal. Hitting 277 lbs and judged pre-diabetic by my doctor a year ago, suffering from joint pain and gum recession (inflammation), I made the decision to make the Big Change. Not only did I give up refined sugar, but also all grains (whole grains, especially wheat, spike blood sugar more than table sugar).
A year later, I have lost 50 lbs, have no joint or lower back pain, and gum recession has reversed. Increased energy, elevated mood. Most of my major improvements came in 2-3 weeks after eliminating all grains and grain products. Weight loss took longer. The program I followed is called "Wheat Belly."
Four months ago, I moved from WB to Nutritional Ketosis, or as I call it, WB+. I had plateaued my weight loss over several months. NK (not to be confused with Ketoacidosis, a dangerous condition in T1 diabetics) emphasizes very low carbs (<10-15 g), moderate protein (70-90 g), and higher fats (80% of calories +). It has broken my IR and I have been steadily losing since moving to NK. Hit my lowest weight in years yesterday. 50 lbs down, 60 to go.
MFP has been my best friend on WB and NK. The display of macros Carbs, Fats, Proteins makes computing the Ketogenic Ratio (how ketogenic any food or meal or day is) a snap. My only wish is that MFP add the KR calculator in its list of nutrients. It's a simple formula.
WB and NK has given me back my health at age 67. The USDA recommended "6-11 servings of whole grains" and "limited fats" is a recipe for obesity, diabetes, as well as providing a rich environment for cancers (love glucose) and dementia (oxidation in neurons). It is no wonder American obesity, diabetes, cancer, and dementia has grown exponentially since these food guidelines were first published in the 1970s.
I have no vested interested in WB or NK beyond being a grateful recipient of their pathway to health. You can read the stories of thousands (with pictures) at OfficialWheatBelly on Facebook. Or get the lowdown on NK from "Butter Bob" Briggs at website "ButterMakesYourPantsFallOff" or Jimmy Moore's excellent research summary in "Keto Clarity."
If you are having trouble losing weight . . . stalled at a certain point . . . simply lower carbs and raise healthy fats. Beyond that, check out these resources for a new way of looking at the American Food Industry.
protein spikes insulin too, so are you recommending avoiding that?
and to your last point, if you are in a caloric surplus and just lower carbs and increase fat and are still in said surplus, you will not lose any additional fat, because caloric surplus.
Except it is called insulin resistance, not "insulin not responding to glucose". Glucose alone doesn't cause insulin resistance, nor even just protein. Epidemiological data demonstrates that high levels of saturated fat are associated with it.
unless you have had a doctor diagnosis you as having a medical condition then you can't think that you have said condition, And "feels" don't count as a self diagnosis.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
Not sure what you mean, but I would not assume a rule for one food applies to all. So I think, no?
There's fats in avocados, nuts etc. so no need to add oil to your steak. That's the same logic is what I'm saying.
Sorry I'm just getting your point. What does this have to do with not adding sugar to fruit?
Seriously? How do you not get what he is saying?
How? Um, I'm dense, my mind works differently, how the heck do I know why I don't get it??0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
Not sure what you mean, but I would not assume a rule for one food applies to all. So I think, no?
There's fats in avocados, nuts etc. so no need to add oil to your steak. That's the same logic is what I'm saying.
Sorry I'm just getting your point. What does this have to do with not adding sugar to fruit?
The poster to whom he was responding said that the guidelines should have said not to consume any added sugar, since we already get sugar from fruit. So steven asked if the same applied to fat -- since we can get fat from foods in which it occurs along with other nutrients (like avocados or salmon and olives), should the guidelines have said "no added fat!" (including that vinaigrette or olive oil on my veg or butter in my pie crust)?
The point is that "no added" does not reasonably follow from "you can consume all you need from naturally-occurring." As a personal choice, sure, whatever, but the poster was talking about what the guidelines should be and what others should do.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
Not sure what you mean, but I would not assume a rule for one food applies to all. So I think, no?
There's fats in avocados, nuts etc. so no need to add oil to your steak. That's the same logic is what I'm saying.
Sorry I'm just getting your point. What does this have to do with not adding sugar to fruit?
The poster to whom he was responding said that the guidelines should have said not to consume any added sugar, since we already get sugar from fruit. So steven asked if the same applied to fat -- since we can get fat from foods in which it occurs along with other nutrients (like avocados or salmon), should the guidelines have said "no added fat!" (including that vinaigrette or olive oil on my veg or butter in my pie crust)?
Ah, actually he replied to my comment that we don't need to add sugar to fruit, not to the original comment, though I see now that I didn't specifically say fruit thinking it was implied from the previous post.
So, my bad, I guess.0 -
snowflake930 wrote: »NO, just NO.
You need sugar...but trying to cut out all sugar, is a bad idea, and not possible or even healthy.
What...? You don't need sugar at all. Sugar is unhealthy and addictive, and while some people are able to limit the amount of sugar they eat, our taste buds are wired to want more and more of it. I strongly agree with what you mentioned that we should eat everything in moderation, but I eat less than 7 grams of sugar a day, and I'm doing totally fine, if not better than before. The reason sugar in fruit is ok, and I say ok because not everyone can have/handle it it, for you is because of the amount of fiber. The fiber slows the rush of insulin production in our body, which is why most people don't have a sugar rush after eating fruit. Chocolate, candy, smoothies, juices, or items with added sugar (be it from fruit or no) lack the fiber, therefore our bodies produce insulin right away. Cutting out sugar is one of the best things I personally think you can do for your body.
0 -
snowflake930 wrote: »NO, just NO.
You need sugar...but trying to cut out all sugar, is a bad idea, and not possible or even healthy.
What...? You don't need sugar at all. Sugar is unhealthy and addictive, and while some people are able to limit the amount of sugar they eat, our taste buds are wired to want more and more of it. I strongly agree with what you mentioned that we should eat everything in moderation, but I eat less than 7 grams of sugar a day, and I'm doing totally fine, if not better than before. The reason sugar in fruit is ok, and I say ok because not everyone can have/handle it it, for you is because of the amount of fiber. The fiber slows the rush of insulin production in our body, which is why most people don't have a sugar rush after eating fruit. Chocolate, candy, smoothies, juices, or items with added sugar (be it from fruit or no) lack the fiber, therefore our bodies produce insulin right away. Cutting out sugar is one of the best things I personally think you can do for your body.
Vintage...
0 -
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1931610/
I think that study proves a number of things.
"Conclusions
Our findings clearly demonstrate that intense sweetness can surpass cocaine reward, even in drug-sensitized and -addicted individuals. We speculate that the addictive potential of intense sweetness results from an inborn hypersensitivity to sweet tastants. In most mammals, including rats and humans, sweet receptors evolved in ancestral environments poor in sugars and are thus not adapted to high concentrations of sweet tastants. The supranormal stimulation of these receptors by sugar-rich diets, such as those now widely available in modern societies, would generate a supranormal reward signal in the brain, with the potential to override self-control mechanisms and thus to lead to addiction."
Straight from NIH. For people who don't believe the studies exist, they do exist. What happens on these forums is something called DENIAL.
0 -
Its really SAD to see (with all the information available today just a few clicks away) that some people still try to convince themselves that sugar can be good for you. There is absolutely nothing good about sugar in any form, we can tolerate loads of sugar yes, glucose is after all "biological fuel" but we should not be eating anything at all with sugar on the ingredients list.
This is the food industry that has been cleverly programming society for years and has got us all hooked on the stuff, all they need to do is keep adding sugar to all their new products and keep us addicted so we can keep buying more of their crap products, happy to say I'm 5 years clean, Had a few relapses perhaps every now and then (cough cough Christmas cough cough) but I know I'm never gonna be a full on addict ever again. Good luck to all of you.
I Vote for Banning Sugar!
http://www.naturalnews.com/047495_sugar_saccharin_addiction.html
I find it really sad that people not only read naturalnews, but consider it a scientifically sound and credible source of information. Literally sad. It saddens me. Its one of the biggest woo factories on the internet.
I have never experienced anyone trying to convince themselves that sugar is "good for you." Sugar is delicious, contains calories, and is neither good for you nor bad for you, except in how you use it - like all other foods. If you you need some quick energy or you want a tasty treat, then its good for you. If you consume so much of it that it either crowds out other foods or leads to excessive weight gain, then its bad for you. Its also a very "natural" food, being basically the boiled down juice of a plant. As a kid my mom and her family made cane syrup every year in a big old cauldron in the yard from the sugar cane that they grew specifically to supply them with this. Those poor addicts.
TLDR; There's no such thing as a sugar addiction. Have a snickers.0 -
Don't we need sugar? Not added sugar, but are there foods that contain no sugar at all? Even meat contains a little sugar, doesn't it?0
-
-
Paleo_Porky wrote: »http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1931610/
I think that study proves a number of things.
"Conclusions
Our findings clearly demonstrate that intense sweetness can surpass cocaine reward, even in drug-sensitized and -addicted individuals. We speculate that the addictive potential of intense sweetness results from an inborn hypersensitivity to sweet tastants. In most mammals, including rats and humans, sweet receptors evolved in ancestral environments poor in sugars and are thus not adapted to high concentrations of sweet tastants. The supranormal stimulation of these receptors by sugar-rich diets, such as those now widely available in modern societies, would generate a supranormal reward signal in the brain, with the potential to override self-control mechanisms and thus to lead to addiction."
Straight from NIH. For people who don't believe the studies exist, they do exist. What happens on these forums is something called DENIAL.
Um, that's a rat study...
And the rats were not given any food, no? Other than the liquids? Is that correct?0 -
Do you have any credible evidence that shows sugar to be as harmful as you make it out to be?
Also, can you tell me what negative impacts I am having on my body since I consume added sugar?0 -
snowflake930 wrote: »NO, just NO.
You need sugar...but trying to cut out all sugar, is a bad idea, and not possible or even healthy.
What...? You don't need sugar at all. Sugar is unhealthy and addictive, and while some people are able to limit the amount of sugar they eat, our taste buds are wired to want more and more of it. I strongly agree with what you mentioned that we should eat everything in moderation, but I eat less than 7 grams of sugar a day, and I'm doing totally fine, if not better than before. The reason sugar in fruit is ok, and I say ok because not everyone can have/handle it it, for you is because of the amount of fiber. The fiber slows the rush of insulin production in our body, which is why most people don't have a sugar rush after eating fruit. Chocolate, candy, smoothies, juices, or items with added sugar (be it from fruit or no) lack the fiber, therefore our bodies produce insulin right away. Cutting out sugar is one of the best things I personally think you can do for your body.
Vegetables. Don't eat fruit or dairy or sweet potatoes, etc., if you like (although IMO that's unlikely to lead to a healthier diet), but this idea that one can have a healthy diet without vegetables is unlikely to be true. I believe that was the point snowflake was making in saying that actually trying to cut out all sugar is not healthy. Numerous whole foods contain sugar. I easily get 20-30 g from just vegetables routinely.
Beyond that, sugar is a fuel that your body prefers to run on, and is especially good for intense exercise. Sure, you can easily make it from other carbs, so what?
Should people limit added sugar? If they are consuming more than the US guidelines recommend, probably. People who eat a balanced, calorie-appropriate diet and don't drink lots of soda probably are not consuming more than that amount. I watch mine to see if I go above the WHO limit (5%) and have found that I typically do not, without much trying. On occasion I do, but if you average it over the week even then I do not.0 -
Do you have any credible evidence that shows sugar to be as harmful as you make it out to be?
Also, can you tell me what negative impacts I am having on my body since I consume added sugar?
Your fitness level is....I mean your abs are so....You haven't lost any w... Nope, I got nothin'0 -
Wooooowwwwww........
Sugar is absolutely evil and you shouldn't ear oranges because they're addictive and the food industry won't tell you that because they want you to buy their oranges and milk.
Also, it's not good for anything and even if you moderate it your tongue will crave more and more.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 999 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions