Maybe Sugar IS the Devil - US Goverment Diet Recommendations
Options
Replies
-
While #1 is true, #2 isn't very accurate. A link was already posted earlier in this thread that showed the BG spike is a good bit lower from protein. Also, most people do not eat equal amounts of protein and carbs in a day, so that's an irrelevant point. The average person is not going to be chowing down on so much protein in a day that there BG would rise from that as much as from carbs.WinoGelato wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »Couldn't be bothered to read everything so don't know if this has been mentioned. A big part of how unhealthy sugar can be is how your body deals with it. I am diabetic and regulary monitor my blood sugar levels so I have a good idea what is going on. When I was at my worst a bowl of oatmeal with milk would send my bloodsugar into the unhealthy range. Now I have improved my health by losing weight, cardio and weight training. I also only eat sugar from natural sources like fruit and milk. By doing all of this I can enjoy eating double the recommended sugar intake and still stay healthy. I did it for three months and had a blood test. My bloodsugar levels were still in the healthy range although slightly increaded. They rose from 30 to 35. The healthy range is 20 to 42 I think. I'm not saying try and eat loads of sugary things and stay healthy anyway as it is not wise to stress your body with excess sugar intake. It's just interesting to have this information. You can get far ahead of any health risks with the correct lifestyle and occasionaly enjoy treats and stay perfectly healthy. One day I at two whole pizzas to myself so I still indulge. Being fitter and stronger helps you out in everyday life too.
No one disputes that sugar needs to be watched by diabetics. That doesn't not apply to all.
Yeah but it's just you can be even further away from any health risks by at least not eating added sugar. It's not black and white, these things sneak up on people. Once something happens that you can't change you wish so bad that you lived differently.Added sugar has no benefits at all. It's a pure addiction.
Absolutely false.
Ok what are the benefits of adding sugar to food?
Energy. Calories (not EVERYONE is trying to lose weight). Taste. Carbs. Fuel for workouts.
All this is available without added sugar. You are conditioned to be this way. I don't need a sugar high to hit a deadlift PR.
So, your contention is that the availablility of alternatives means that each individual alternative has zero benefits?
Adding sugar to food is not an alternative. It's a food industry strategy and it works big time. The cost? Well I'm sure they don' t lose any sleep after they get tired counting their millions of dollars. Who cares if people get sick and die? What's a limb or two here and there? Where do you draw the line?
Yes, I'm sure the food industry's strategy is to kill or injure as many of their consumers as possible.
#WinningStrategy
But your post didn't answer the question I asked.
You simply do not need to add extra sugar to food. There is enough in it already. The food industry encourages over consumption of their products to maximize profits.
How are you defining extra sugar? Are you talking about adding sugar to something that's already sweet? I agree that would be overkill. Are you talking about the dreaded HFCS? Because when your body breaks it down, it treats it the same as any other sugar.
Now, I do think that processed foods have more sugar then they need in them, but it's for the same reason they use MSG: cheap way to add flavor. Which, incidentally, means I can't eat a lot of processed foods anymore since they're putting MSG back into them and my digestive system breaks out the pitchforks and torches when I get a little in my system. ><
But sugar itself? Sugar is not evil. It does not come from the Dark Side, it does not target your body and decay it from the inside, nor does it travel directly to your fat cells and build expansions. Sugar itself is a necessary nutrient you need. Just make sure you're getting a reasonable amount, and if you eat a lot of processed meals, make sure you keep track of it so you don't get too much.
Ok the point I'm making is that extracting sugar from food to use on other food is the problem. Stopping doing that is like a "dumb solution" if you like as people seem to be unable to control their eating. Everyone here is probably used to tracking what they eat so it's easy for us. Some people just cannot control themselves and just end up dying from it. All the information is out there on how to be healthy so why are there so many obese people? They just can't do it. Stopping adding sugar to foods would prevent a lot of this from happening. I know it's just a dream really because of all the money involved and corporate power blah blah
So I really am trying to understand your point here. Are you saying that no one should consume sugar in any form, regardless of whether or not they have a medical reason to restrict it, because someday we MIGHT have medical issues - IR, etc?...
I think his point is more leaning towards "if you consume any sugar in any form, even one grain of it, you'll get da diabeetus and die. 100% of the people, 100% of the time."
The points being conveniently omitted/ignored are:
1) All carbohydrates are metabolized into sugars. No matter how "clean" or "healthy" or "organic" or "complex" they are.
2) Protein causes a BG spike nearly identical to carbs. So if sugarz iz da debil, proteinz must be da debilz too.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
While #1 is true, #2 isn't very accurate. A link was already posted earlier in this thread that showed the BG spike is a good bit lower from protein. Also, most people do not eat equal amounts of protein and carbs in a day, so that's an irrelevant point. The average person is not going to be chowing down on so much protein in a day that there BG would rise from that as much as from carbs.WinoGelato wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »Couldn't be bothered to read everything so don't know if this has been mentioned. A big part of how unhealthy sugar can be is how your body deals with it. I am diabetic and regulary monitor my blood sugar levels so I have a good idea what is going on. When I was at my worst a bowl of oatmeal with milk would send my bloodsugar into the unhealthy range. Now I have improved my health by losing weight, cardio and weight training. I also only eat sugar from natural sources like fruit and milk. By doing all of this I can enjoy eating double the recommended sugar intake and still stay healthy. I did it for three months and had a blood test. My bloodsugar levels were still in the healthy range although slightly increaded. They rose from 30 to 35. The healthy range is 20 to 42 I think. I'm not saying try and eat loads of sugary things and stay healthy anyway as it is not wise to stress your body with excess sugar intake. It's just interesting to have this information. You can get far ahead of any health risks with the correct lifestyle and occasionaly enjoy treats and stay perfectly healthy. One day I at two whole pizzas to myself so I still indulge. Being fitter and stronger helps you out in everyday life too.
No one disputes that sugar needs to be watched by diabetics. That doesn't not apply to all.
Yeah but it's just you can be even further away from any health risks by at least not eating added sugar. It's not black and white, these things sneak up on people. Once something happens that you can't change you wish so bad that you lived differently.Added sugar has no benefits at all. It's a pure addiction.
Absolutely false.
Ok what are the benefits of adding sugar to food?
Energy. Calories (not EVERYONE is trying to lose weight). Taste. Carbs. Fuel for workouts.
All this is available without added sugar. You are conditioned to be this way. I don't need a sugar high to hit a deadlift PR.
So, your contention is that the availablility of alternatives means that each individual alternative has zero benefits?
Adding sugar to food is not an alternative. It's a food industry strategy and it works big time. The cost? Well I'm sure they don' t lose any sleep after they get tired counting their millions of dollars. Who cares if people get sick and die? What's a limb or two here and there? Where do you draw the line?
Yes, I'm sure the food industry's strategy is to kill or injure as many of their consumers as possible.
#WinningStrategy
But your post didn't answer the question I asked.
You simply do not need to add extra sugar to food. There is enough in it already. The food industry encourages over consumption of their products to maximize profits.
How are you defining extra sugar? Are you talking about adding sugar to something that's already sweet? I agree that would be overkill. Are you talking about the dreaded HFCS? Because when your body breaks it down, it treats it the same as any other sugar.
Now, I do think that processed foods have more sugar then they need in them, but it's for the same reason they use MSG: cheap way to add flavor. Which, incidentally, means I can't eat a lot of processed foods anymore since they're putting MSG back into them and my digestive system breaks out the pitchforks and torches when I get a little in my system. ><
But sugar itself? Sugar is not evil. It does not come from the Dark Side, it does not target your body and decay it from the inside, nor does it travel directly to your fat cells and build expansions. Sugar itself is a necessary nutrient you need. Just make sure you're getting a reasonable amount, and if you eat a lot of processed meals, make sure you keep track of it so you don't get too much.
Ok the point I'm making is that extracting sugar from food to use on other food is the problem. Stopping doing that is like a "dumb solution" if you like as people seem to be unable to control their eating. Everyone here is probably used to tracking what they eat so it's easy for us. Some people just cannot control themselves and just end up dying from it. All the information is out there on how to be healthy so why are there so many obese people? They just can't do it. Stopping adding sugar to foods would prevent a lot of this from happening. I know it's just a dream really because of all the money involved and corporate power blah blah
So I really am trying to understand your point here. Are you saying that no one should consume sugar in any form, regardless of whether or not they have a medical reason to restrict it, because someday we MIGHT have medical issues - IR, etc?...
I think his point is more leaning towards "if you consume any sugar in any form, even one grain of it, you'll get da diabeetus and die. 100% of the people, 100% of the time."
The points being conveniently omitted/ignored are:
1) All carbohydrates are metabolized into sugars. No matter how "clean" or "healthy" or "organic" or "complex" they are.
2) Protein causes a BG spike nearly identical to carbs. So if sugarz iz da debil, proteinz must be da debilz too.
did you even read the link that we posted? The spike is about the same. So if you eat protein you are creating the same insulin spike that you somehow think is bad.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 feel really sad every time I see a link to Natural News as a source of information.
Just for the heck of it, since the site is about nature - even though honey is virtually identical to any candy, even higher in raw sugar than a lot, and the molecules of sugar are identical, why don't people become addicted to honey? Why haven't many humans perished being stung to death trying to get their fix since the first person came across honey, just like so many people die from or in pursuit of hard drugs?0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »snowflake930 wrote: »NO, just NO.
You need sugar.
Moderation in all things.
Overindulging in any food can be bad for you.
In all fairness, cutting out, or at the very least cutting back, on sugary drinks, and that includes juice, is probably not a bad idea, but trying to cut out all sugar, is a bad idea, and not possible or even healthy.
Did you read the US guidelines? They have not said "cut out all sugar".
I think snowflake was responding to another poster who had said that guidelines ought to be zero.0 -
@ForecasterJason for your reading pleasure:ForecasterJason wrote: »
While #1 is true, #2 isn't very accurate. A link was already posted earlier in this thread that showed the BG spike is a good bit lower from protein. Also, most people do not eat equal amounts of protein and carbs in a day, so that's an irrelevant point. The average person is not going to be chowing down on so much protein in a day that there BG would rise from that as much as from carbs.WinoGelato wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »Couldn't be bothered to read everything so don't know if this has been mentioned. A big part of how unhealthy sugar can be is how your body deals with it. I am diabetic and regulary monitor my blood sugar levels so I have a good idea what is going on. When I was at my worst a bowl of oatmeal with milk would send my bloodsugar into the unhealthy range. Now I have improved my health by losing weight, cardio and weight training. I also only eat sugar from natural sources like fruit and milk. By doing all of this I can enjoy eating double the recommended sugar intake and still stay healthy. I did it for three months and had a blood test. My bloodsugar levels were still in the healthy range although slightly increaded. They rose from 30 to 35. The healthy range is 20 to 42 I think. I'm not saying try and eat loads of sugary things and stay healthy anyway as it is not wise to stress your body with excess sugar intake. It's just interesting to have this information. You can get far ahead of any health risks with the correct lifestyle and occasionaly enjoy treats and stay perfectly healthy. One day I at two whole pizzas to myself so I still indulge. Being fitter and stronger helps you out in everyday life too.
No one disputes that sugar needs to be watched by diabetics. That doesn't not apply to all.
Yeah but it's just you can be even further away from any health risks by at least not eating added sugar. It's not black and white, these things sneak up on people. Once something happens that you can't change you wish so bad that you lived differently.Added sugar has no benefits at all. It's a pure addiction.
Absolutely false.
Ok what are the benefits of adding sugar to food?
Energy. Calories (not EVERYONE is trying to lose weight). Taste. Carbs. Fuel for workouts.
All this is available without added sugar. You are conditioned to be this way. I don't need a sugar high to hit a deadlift PR.
So, your contention is that the availablility of alternatives means that each individual alternative has zero benefits?
Adding sugar to food is not an alternative. It's a food industry strategy and it works big time. The cost? Well I'm sure they don' t lose any sleep after they get tired counting their millions of dollars. Who cares if people get sick and die? What's a limb or two here and there? Where do you draw the line?
Yes, I'm sure the food industry's strategy is to kill or injure as many of their consumers as possible.
#WinningStrategy
But your post didn't answer the question I asked.
You simply do not need to add extra sugar to food. There is enough in it already. The food industry encourages over consumption of their products to maximize profits.
How are you defining extra sugar? Are you talking about adding sugar to something that's already sweet? I agree that would be overkill. Are you talking about the dreaded HFCS? Because when your body breaks it down, it treats it the same as any other sugar.
Now, I do think that processed foods have more sugar then they need in them, but it's for the same reason they use MSG: cheap way to add flavor. Which, incidentally, means I can't eat a lot of processed foods anymore since they're putting MSG back into them and my digestive system breaks out the pitchforks and torches when I get a little in my system. ><
But sugar itself? Sugar is not evil. It does not come from the Dark Side, it does not target your body and decay it from the inside, nor does it travel directly to your fat cells and build expansions. Sugar itself is a necessary nutrient you need. Just make sure you're getting a reasonable amount, and if you eat a lot of processed meals, make sure you keep track of it so you don't get too much.
Ok the point I'm making is that extracting sugar from food to use on other food is the problem. Stopping doing that is like a "dumb solution" if you like as people seem to be unable to control their eating. Everyone here is probably used to tracking what they eat so it's easy for us. Some people just cannot control themselves and just end up dying from it. All the information is out there on how to be healthy so why are there so many obese people? They just can't do it. Stopping adding sugar to foods would prevent a lot of this from happening. I know it's just a dream really because of all the money involved and corporate power blah blah
So I really am trying to understand your point here. Are you saying that no one should consume sugar in any form, regardless of whether or not they have a medical reason to restrict it, because someday we MIGHT have medical issues - IR, etc?...
I think his point is more leaning towards "if you consume any sugar in any form, even one grain of it, you'll get da diabeetus and die. 100% of the people, 100% of the time."
The points being conveniently omitted/ignored are:
1) All carbohydrates are metabolized into sugars. No matter how "clean" or "healthy" or "organic" or "complex" they are.
2) Protein causes a BG spike nearly identical to carbs. So if sugarz iz da debil, proteinz must be da debilz too.
MYTH: Carbohydrate Is Singularly Responsible for Driving Insulin
FACT: Protein Is a Potent Stimulator of Insulin Too
This is probably the biggest misconception that is out there. Carbohydrates get a bad rap because of their effect on insulin, but protein stimulates insulin secretion as well. In fact, it can be just as potent of a stimulus for insulin as carbohydrate. One recent study compared the effects of two different meals on insulin. One meal contained 21 grams of protein and 125 grams of carbohydrate. The other meal contained 75 grams of protein and 75 grams of carbohydrate. Both meals contained 675 calories. Here is a chart of the insulin response:
You can see that, despite the fact that the blood sugar response was much higher in the meal with more carbohydrate, the insulin response wasn't higher. In fact, the insulin response was somewhat higher after the high protein meal, although this wasn't statistically significant.
Some people might argue that the "low-carb" condition wasn't really low carb because it had 75 grams of carbohydrate. But that's not the point. The point is that the high-carb condition had nearly TWICE as much carbohydrate, along with a HIGHER glucose response, yet insulin secretion was slightly LOWER. The protein was just as powerful at stimulating insulin as the carbohydrate.
* I did not include the graphs...0 -
If you're talking about the link you posted, yes I read that. The insulin spike from protein was higher, but the BG spike was higher from carbs. The high BG is what's really the issue, as that is what can eventually lead to problems. And like I said, most people don't sit down to 250+grams of protein in a day as many do with carbs (though I realize there are some exceptions). So in reality I don't think it can't be said that insulin is actually being spiked as much from protein in the average person.ForecasterJason wrote: »
While #1 is true, #2 isn't very accurate. A link was already posted earlier in this thread that showed the BG spike is a good bit lower from protein. Also, most people do not eat equal amounts of protein and carbs in a day, so that's an irrelevant point. The average person is not going to be chowing down on so much protein in a day that there BG would rise from that as much as from carbs.WinoGelato wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »Couldn't be bothered to read everything so don't know if this has been mentioned. A big part of how unhealthy sugar can be is how your body deals with it. I am diabetic and regulary monitor my blood sugar levels so I have a good idea what is going on. When I was at my worst a bowl of oatmeal with milk would send my bloodsugar into the unhealthy range. Now I have improved my health by losing weight, cardio and weight training. I also only eat sugar from natural sources like fruit and milk. By doing all of this I can enjoy eating double the recommended sugar intake and still stay healthy. I did it for three months and had a blood test. My bloodsugar levels were still in the healthy range although slightly increaded. They rose from 30 to 35. The healthy range is 20 to 42 I think. I'm not saying try and eat loads of sugary things and stay healthy anyway as it is not wise to stress your body with excess sugar intake. It's just interesting to have this information. You can get far ahead of any health risks with the correct lifestyle and occasionaly enjoy treats and stay perfectly healthy. One day I at two whole pizzas to myself so I still indulge. Being fitter and stronger helps you out in everyday life too.
No one disputes that sugar needs to be watched by diabetics. That doesn't not apply to all.
Yeah but it's just you can be even further away from any health risks by at least not eating added sugar. It's not black and white, these things sneak up on people. Once something happens that you can't change you wish so bad that you lived differently.Added sugar has no benefits at all. It's a pure addiction.
Absolutely false.
Ok what are the benefits of adding sugar to food?
Energy. Calories (not EVERYONE is trying to lose weight). Taste. Carbs. Fuel for workouts.
All this is available without added sugar. You are conditioned to be this way. I don't need a sugar high to hit a deadlift PR.
So, your contention is that the availablility of alternatives means that each individual alternative has zero benefits?
Adding sugar to food is not an alternative. It's a food industry strategy and it works big time. The cost? Well I'm sure they don' t lose any sleep after they get tired counting their millions of dollars. Who cares if people get sick and die? What's a limb or two here and there? Where do you draw the line?
Yes, I'm sure the food industry's strategy is to kill or injure as many of their consumers as possible.
#WinningStrategy
But your post didn't answer the question I asked.
You simply do not need to add extra sugar to food. There is enough in it already. The food industry encourages over consumption of their products to maximize profits.
How are you defining extra sugar? Are you talking about adding sugar to something that's already sweet? I agree that would be overkill. Are you talking about the dreaded HFCS? Because when your body breaks it down, it treats it the same as any other sugar.
Now, I do think that processed foods have more sugar then they need in them, but it's for the same reason they use MSG: cheap way to add flavor. Which, incidentally, means I can't eat a lot of processed foods anymore since they're putting MSG back into them and my digestive system breaks out the pitchforks and torches when I get a little in my system. ><
But sugar itself? Sugar is not evil. It does not come from the Dark Side, it does not target your body and decay it from the inside, nor does it travel directly to your fat cells and build expansions. Sugar itself is a necessary nutrient you need. Just make sure you're getting a reasonable amount, and if you eat a lot of processed meals, make sure you keep track of it so you don't get too much.
Ok the point I'm making is that extracting sugar from food to use on other food is the problem. Stopping doing that is like a "dumb solution" if you like as people seem to be unable to control their eating. Everyone here is probably used to tracking what they eat so it's easy for us. Some people just cannot control themselves and just end up dying from it. All the information is out there on how to be healthy so why are there so many obese people? They just can't do it. Stopping adding sugar to foods would prevent a lot of this from happening. I know it's just a dream really because of all the money involved and corporate power blah blah
So I really am trying to understand your point here. Are you saying that no one should consume sugar in any form, regardless of whether or not they have a medical reason to restrict it, because someday we MIGHT have medical issues - IR, etc?...
I think his point is more leaning towards "if you consume any sugar in any form, even one grain of it, you'll get da diabeetus and die. 100% of the people, 100% of the time."
The points being conveniently omitted/ignored are:
1) All carbohydrates are metabolized into sugars. No matter how "clean" or "healthy" or "organic" or "complex" they are.
2) Protein causes a BG spike nearly identical to carbs. So if sugarz iz da debil, proteinz must be da debilz too.
did you even read the link that we posted? The spike is about the same. So if you eat protein you are creating the same insulin spike that you somehow think is bad.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »snowflake930 wrote: »NO, just NO.
You need sugar.
Moderation in all things.
Overindulging in any food can be bad for you.
In all fairness, cutting out, or at the very least cutting back, on sugary drinks, and that includes juice, is probably not a bad idea, but trying to cut out all sugar, is a bad idea, and not possible or even healthy.
Did you read the US guidelines? They have not said "cut out all sugar".
I think snowflake was responding to another poster who had said that guidelines ought to be zero.
Ah. This is where quoting comes in handy.
Thanks. 0 -
Actually, I was wrong -- I think the response was to the idea of sugar=devil. (Like me, snowflake seems to think that's a silly comparison merely because one shouldn't overindulge.) She (or he) followed up with a statement that cutting back was generally a good idea, though.
(It was way back on page 1, heh.)0 -
Anyone that says humans evolved in a sugar poor environment, given our ancestors were FRUGIVORES and ate as much as 90% of their diet from fruit, shouldn't be commenting on human evolution.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.
0 -
The part I bolded is what I'm referring to. That's closer to the ratio of carbs to protein that the average person eats, and that's what was shown to cause a higher surge in glucose.
@ForecasterJason for your reading pleasure:ForecasterJason wrote: »
While #1 is true, #2 isn't very accurate. A link was already posted earlier in this thread that showed the BG spike is a good bit lower from protein. Also, most people do not eat equal amounts of protein and carbs in a day, so that's an irrelevant point. The average person is not going to be chowing down on so much protein in a day that there BG would rise from that as much as from carbs.WinoGelato wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »Couldn't be bothered to read everything so don't know if this has been mentioned. A big part of how unhealthy sugar can be is how your body deals with it. I am diabetic and regulary monitor my blood sugar levels so I have a good idea what is going on. When I was at my worst a bowl of oatmeal with milk would send my bloodsugar into the unhealthy range. Now I have improved my health by losing weight, cardio and weight training. I also only eat sugar from natural sources like fruit and milk. By doing all of this I can enjoy eating double the recommended sugar intake and still stay healthy. I did it for three months and had a blood test. My bloodsugar levels were still in the healthy range although slightly increaded. They rose from 30 to 35. The healthy range is 20 to 42 I think. I'm not saying try and eat loads of sugary things and stay healthy anyway as it is not wise to stress your body with excess sugar intake. It's just interesting to have this information. You can get far ahead of any health risks with the correct lifestyle and occasionaly enjoy treats and stay perfectly healthy. One day I at two whole pizzas to myself so I still indulge. Being fitter and stronger helps you out in everyday life too.
No one disputes that sugar needs to be watched by diabetics. That doesn't not apply to all.
Yeah but it's just you can be even further away from any health risks by at least not eating added sugar. It's not black and white, these things sneak up on people. Once something happens that you can't change you wish so bad that you lived differently.Added sugar has no benefits at all. It's a pure addiction.
Absolutely false.
Ok what are the benefits of adding sugar to food?
Energy. Calories (not EVERYONE is trying to lose weight). Taste. Carbs. Fuel for workouts.
All this is available without added sugar. You are conditioned to be this way. I don't need a sugar high to hit a deadlift PR.
So, your contention is that the availablility of alternatives means that each individual alternative has zero benefits?
Adding sugar to food is not an alternative. It's a food industry strategy and it works big time. The cost? Well I'm sure they don' t lose any sleep after they get tired counting their millions of dollars. Who cares if people get sick and die? What's a limb or two here and there? Where do you draw the line?
Yes, I'm sure the food industry's strategy is to kill or injure as many of their consumers as possible.
#WinningStrategy
But your post didn't answer the question I asked.
You simply do not need to add extra sugar to food. There is enough in it already. The food industry encourages over consumption of their products to maximize profits.
How are you defining extra sugar? Are you talking about adding sugar to something that's already sweet? I agree that would be overkill. Are you talking about the dreaded HFCS? Because when your body breaks it down, it treats it the same as any other sugar.
Now, I do think that processed foods have more sugar then they need in them, but it's for the same reason they use MSG: cheap way to add flavor. Which, incidentally, means I can't eat a lot of processed foods anymore since they're putting MSG back into them and my digestive system breaks out the pitchforks and torches when I get a little in my system. ><
But sugar itself? Sugar is not evil. It does not come from the Dark Side, it does not target your body and decay it from the inside, nor does it travel directly to your fat cells and build expansions. Sugar itself is a necessary nutrient you need. Just make sure you're getting a reasonable amount, and if you eat a lot of processed meals, make sure you keep track of it so you don't get too much.
Ok the point I'm making is that extracting sugar from food to use on other food is the problem. Stopping doing that is like a "dumb solution" if you like as people seem to be unable to control their eating. Everyone here is probably used to tracking what they eat so it's easy for us. Some people just cannot control themselves and just end up dying from it. All the information is out there on how to be healthy so why are there so many obese people? They just can't do it. Stopping adding sugar to foods would prevent a lot of this from happening. I know it's just a dream really because of all the money involved and corporate power blah blah
So I really am trying to understand your point here. Are you saying that no one should consume sugar in any form, regardless of whether or not they have a medical reason to restrict it, because someday we MIGHT have medical issues - IR, etc?...
I think his point is more leaning towards "if you consume any sugar in any form, even one grain of it, you'll get da diabeetus and die. 100% of the people, 100% of the time."
The points being conveniently omitted/ignored are:
1) All carbohydrates are metabolized into sugars. No matter how "clean" or "healthy" or "organic" or "complex" they are.
2) Protein causes a BG spike nearly identical to carbs. So if sugarz iz da debil, proteinz must be da debilz too.
MYTH: Carbohydrate Is Singularly Responsible for Driving Insulin
FACT: Protein Is a Potent Stimulator of Insulin Too
This is probably the biggest misconception that is out there. Carbohydrates get a bad rap because of their effect on insulin, but protein stimulates insulin secretion as well. In fact, it can be just as potent of a stimulus for insulin as carbohydrate. One recent study compared the effects of two different meals on insulin. One meal contained 21 grams of protein and 125 grams of carbohydrate. The other meal contained 75 grams of protein and 75 grams of carbohydrate. Both meals contained 675 calories. Here is a chart of the insulin response:
You can see that, despite the fact that the blood sugar response was much higher in the meal with more carbohydrate, the insulin response wasn't higher. In fact, the insulin response was somewhat higher after the high protein meal, although this wasn't statistically significant.
Some people might argue that the "low-carb" condition wasn't really low carb because it had 75 grams of carbohydrate. But that's not the point. The point is that the high-carb condition had nearly TWICE as much carbohydrate, along with a HIGHER glucose response, yet insulin secretion was slightly LOWER. The protein was just as powerful at stimulating insulin as the carbohydrate.
* I did not include the graphs...
0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
While #1 is true, #2 isn't very accurate. A link was already posted earlier in this thread that showed the BG spike is a good bit lower from protein. Also, most people do not eat equal amounts of protein and carbs in a day, so that's an irrelevant point. The average person is not going to be chowing down on so much protein in a day that there BG would rise from that as much as from carbs.WinoGelato wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »Couldn't be bothered to read everything so don't know if this has been mentioned. A big part of how unhealthy sugar can be is how your body deals with it. I am diabetic and regulary monitor my blood sugar levels so I have a good idea what is going on. When I was at my worst a bowl of oatmeal with milk would send my bloodsugar into the unhealthy range. Now I have improved my health by losing weight, cardio and weight training. I also only eat sugar from natural sources like fruit and milk. By doing all of this I can enjoy eating double the recommended sugar intake and still stay healthy. I did it for three months and had a blood test. My bloodsugar levels were still in the healthy range although slightly increaded. They rose from 30 to 35. The healthy range is 20 to 42 I think. I'm not saying try and eat loads of sugary things and stay healthy anyway as it is not wise to stress your body with excess sugar intake. It's just interesting to have this information. You can get far ahead of any health risks with the correct lifestyle and occasionaly enjoy treats and stay perfectly healthy. One day I at two whole pizzas to myself so I still indulge. Being fitter and stronger helps you out in everyday life too.
No one disputes that sugar needs to be watched by diabetics. That doesn't not apply to all.
Yeah but it's just you can be even further away from any health risks by at least not eating added sugar. It's not black and white, these things sneak up on people. Once something happens that you can't change you wish so bad that you lived differently.Added sugar has no benefits at all. It's a pure addiction.
Absolutely false.
Ok what are the benefits of adding sugar to food?
Energy. Calories (not EVERYONE is trying to lose weight). Taste. Carbs. Fuel for workouts.
All this is available without added sugar. You are conditioned to be this way. I don't need a sugar high to hit a deadlift PR.
So, your contention is that the availablility of alternatives means that each individual alternative has zero benefits?
Adding sugar to food is not an alternative. It's a food industry strategy and it works big time. The cost? Well I'm sure they don' t lose any sleep after they get tired counting their millions of dollars. Who cares if people get sick and die? What's a limb or two here and there? Where do you draw the line?
Yes, I'm sure the food industry's strategy is to kill or injure as many of their consumers as possible.
#WinningStrategy
But your post didn't answer the question I asked.
You simply do not need to add extra sugar to food. There is enough in it already. The food industry encourages over consumption of their products to maximize profits.
How are you defining extra sugar? Are you talking about adding sugar to something that's already sweet? I agree that would be overkill. Are you talking about the dreaded HFCS? Because when your body breaks it down, it treats it the same as any other sugar.
Now, I do think that processed foods have more sugar then they need in them, but it's for the same reason they use MSG: cheap way to add flavor. Which, incidentally, means I can't eat a lot of processed foods anymore since they're putting MSG back into them and my digestive system breaks out the pitchforks and torches when I get a little in my system. ><
But sugar itself? Sugar is not evil. It does not come from the Dark Side, it does not target your body and decay it from the inside, nor does it travel directly to your fat cells and build expansions. Sugar itself is a necessary nutrient you need. Just make sure you're getting a reasonable amount, and if you eat a lot of processed meals, make sure you keep track of it so you don't get too much.
Ok the point I'm making is that extracting sugar from food to use on other food is the problem. Stopping doing that is like a "dumb solution" if you like as people seem to be unable to control their eating. Everyone here is probably used to tracking what they eat so it's easy for us. Some people just cannot control themselves and just end up dying from it. All the information is out there on how to be healthy so why are there so many obese people? They just can't do it. Stopping adding sugar to foods would prevent a lot of this from happening. I know it's just a dream really because of all the money involved and corporate power blah blah
So I really am trying to understand your point here. Are you saying that no one should consume sugar in any form, regardless of whether or not they have a medical reason to restrict it, because someday we MIGHT have medical issues - IR, etc?...
I think his point is more leaning towards "if you consume any sugar in any form, even one grain of it, you'll get da diabeetus and die. 100% of the people, 100% of the time."
The points being conveniently omitted/ignored are:
1) All carbohydrates are metabolized into sugars. No matter how "clean" or "healthy" or "organic" or "complex" they are.
2) Protein causes a BG spike nearly identical to carbs. So if sugarz iz da debil, proteinz must be da debilz too.
did you even read the link that we posted? The spike is about the same. So if you eat protein you are creating the same insulin spike that you somehow think is bad.
I didn't read the article, but I already know plenty about this topic. The answer is that #1 is mostly true - Fiber is a carb that does not convert to glucose. Sugar alcohols do not convert to glucose at 100%.
As for #2, no... not even close. After the amino acids are separated out from the protein itself, some of those amino acids can be converted to glucose. It doesn't happen even close to the same speed as net carbs converting to glucose and some amino acids can't be converted to glucose at all (at least not in humans).
These are the reasons why people like me, who monitor our blood glucose (BG) constantly and manually calculate and cause introduction of insulin into our bodies, do not calculate insulin the same way when eating protein as we do when eating net carbs. I've seen the effects of carbs and proteins on BG every day for decades.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 feel really sad every time I see a link to Natural News as a source of information.
Just for the heck of it, since the site is about nature - even though honey is virtually identical to any candy, even higher in raw sugar than a lot, and the molecules of sugar are identical, why don't people become addicted to honey? Why haven't many humans perished being stung to death trying to get their fix since the first person came across honey, just like so many people die from or in pursuit of hard drugs?
How come many alcoholics hold down full time jobs, many very successful C level executives, DRs, lawyers, priests... you name it, while others are the unfortunate homeless drunken folks on city streets? I believe answer for both questions is the same.0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
While #1 is true, #2 isn't very accurate. A link was already posted earlier in this thread that showed the BG spike is a good bit lower from protein. Also, most people do not eat equal amounts of protein and carbs in a day, so that's an irrelevant point. The average person is not going to be chowing down on so much protein in a day that there BG would rise from that as much as from carbs.WinoGelato wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »Couldn't be bothered to read everything so don't know if this has been mentioned. A big part of how unhealthy sugar can be is how your body deals with it. I am diabetic and regulary monitor my blood sugar levels so I have a good idea what is going on. When I was at my worst a bowl of oatmeal with milk would send my bloodsugar into the unhealthy range. Now I have improved my health by losing weight, cardio and weight training. I also only eat sugar from natural sources like fruit and milk. By doing all of this I can enjoy eating double the recommended sugar intake and still stay healthy. I did it for three months and had a blood test. My bloodsugar levels were still in the healthy range although slightly increaded. They rose from 30 to 35. The healthy range is 20 to 42 I think. I'm not saying try and eat loads of sugary things and stay healthy anyway as it is not wise to stress your body with excess sugar intake. It's just interesting to have this information. You can get far ahead of any health risks with the correct lifestyle and occasionaly enjoy treats and stay perfectly healthy. One day I at two whole pizzas to myself so I still indulge. Being fitter and stronger helps you out in everyday life too.
No one disputes that sugar needs to be watched by diabetics. That doesn't not apply to all.
Yeah but it's just you can be even further away from any health risks by at least not eating added sugar. It's not black and white, these things sneak up on people. Once something happens that you can't change you wish so bad that you lived differently.Added sugar has no benefits at all. It's a pure addiction.
Absolutely false.
Ok what are the benefits of adding sugar to food?
Energy. Calories (not EVERYONE is trying to lose weight). Taste. Carbs. Fuel for workouts.
All this is available without added sugar. You are conditioned to be this way. I don't need a sugar high to hit a deadlift PR.
So, your contention is that the availablility of alternatives means that each individual alternative has zero benefits?
Adding sugar to food is not an alternative. It's a food industry strategy and it works big time. The cost? Well I'm sure they don' t lose any sleep after they get tired counting their millions of dollars. Who cares if people get sick and die? What's a limb or two here and there? Where do you draw the line?
Yes, I'm sure the food industry's strategy is to kill or injure as many of their consumers as possible.
#WinningStrategy
But your post didn't answer the question I asked.
You simply do not need to add extra sugar to food. There is enough in it already. The food industry encourages over consumption of their products to maximize profits.
How are you defining extra sugar? Are you talking about adding sugar to something that's already sweet? I agree that would be overkill. Are you talking about the dreaded HFCS? Because when your body breaks it down, it treats it the same as any other sugar.
Now, I do think that processed foods have more sugar then they need in them, but it's for the same reason they use MSG: cheap way to add flavor. Which, incidentally, means I can't eat a lot of processed foods anymore since they're putting MSG back into them and my digestive system breaks out the pitchforks and torches when I get a little in my system. ><
But sugar itself? Sugar is not evil. It does not come from the Dark Side, it does not target your body and decay it from the inside, nor does it travel directly to your fat cells and build expansions. Sugar itself is a necessary nutrient you need. Just make sure you're getting a reasonable amount, and if you eat a lot of processed meals, make sure you keep track of it so you don't get too much.
Ok the point I'm making is that extracting sugar from food to use on other food is the problem. Stopping doing that is like a "dumb solution" if you like as people seem to be unable to control their eating. Everyone here is probably used to tracking what they eat so it's easy for us. Some people just cannot control themselves and just end up dying from it. All the information is out there on how to be healthy so why are there so many obese people? They just can't do it. Stopping adding sugar to foods would prevent a lot of this from happening. I know it's just a dream really because of all the money involved and corporate power blah blah
So I really am trying to understand your point here. Are you saying that no one should consume sugar in any form, regardless of whether or not they have a medical reason to restrict it, because someday we MIGHT have medical issues - IR, etc?...
I think his point is more leaning towards "if you consume any sugar in any form, even one grain of it, you'll get da diabeetus and die. 100% of the people, 100% of the time."
The points being conveniently omitted/ignored are:
1) All carbohydrates are metabolized into sugars. No matter how "clean" or "healthy" or "organic" or "complex" they are.
2) Protein causes a BG spike nearly identical to carbs. So if sugarz iz da debil, proteinz must be da debilz too.
did you even read the link that we posted? The spike is about the same. So if you eat protein you are creating the same insulin spike that you somehow think is bad.
I didn't read the article, but I already know plenty about this topic. The answer is that #1 is mostly true - Fiber is a carb that does not convert to glucose. Sugar alcohols do not convert to glucose at 100%.
As for #2, no... not even close. After the amino acids are separated out from the protein itself, some of those amino acids can be converted to glucose. It doesn't happen even close to the same speed as net carbs converting to glucose and some amino acids can't be converted to glucose at all (at least not in humans).
These are the reasons why people like me, who monitor our blood glucose (BG) constantly and manually calculate and cause introduction of insulin into our bodies, do not calculate insulin the same way when eating protein as we do when eating net carbs. I've seen the effects of carbs and proteins on BG every day for decades.
I am assuming you have a medical condition that requires you to monitor your blood glucose, yes?
for the rest of us with no medical condition it does not really matter.0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
While #1 is true, #2 isn't very accurate. A link was already posted earlier in this thread that showed the BG spike is a good bit lower from protein. Also, most people do not eat equal amounts of protein and carbs in a day, so that's an irrelevant point. The average person is not going to be chowing down on so much protein in a day that there BG would rise from that as much as from carbs.WinoGelato wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »Couldn't be bothered to read everything so don't know if this has been mentioned. A big part of how unhealthy sugar can be is how your body deals with it. I am diabetic and regulary monitor my blood sugar levels so I have a good idea what is going on. When I was at my worst a bowl of oatmeal with milk would send my bloodsugar into the unhealthy range. Now I have improved my health by losing weight, cardio and weight training. I also only eat sugar from natural sources like fruit and milk. By doing all of this I can enjoy eating double the recommended sugar intake and still stay healthy. I did it for three months and had a blood test. My bloodsugar levels were still in the healthy range although slightly increaded. They rose from 30 to 35. The healthy range is 20 to 42 I think. I'm not saying try and eat loads of sugary things and stay healthy anyway as it is not wise to stress your body with excess sugar intake. It's just interesting to have this information. You can get far ahead of any health risks with the correct lifestyle and occasionaly enjoy treats and stay perfectly healthy. One day I at two whole pizzas to myself so I still indulge. Being fitter and stronger helps you out in everyday life too.
No one disputes that sugar needs to be watched by diabetics. That doesn't not apply to all.
Yeah but it's just you can be even further away from any health risks by at least not eating added sugar. It's not black and white, these things sneak up on people. Once something happens that you can't change you wish so bad that you lived differently.Added sugar has no benefits at all. It's a pure addiction.
Absolutely false.
Ok what are the benefits of adding sugar to food?
Energy. Calories (not EVERYONE is trying to lose weight). Taste. Carbs. Fuel for workouts.
All this is available without added sugar. You are conditioned to be this way. I don't need a sugar high to hit a deadlift PR.
So, your contention is that the availablility of alternatives means that each individual alternative has zero benefits?
Adding sugar to food is not an alternative. It's a food industry strategy and it works big time. The cost? Well I'm sure they don' t lose any sleep after they get tired counting their millions of dollars. Who cares if people get sick and die? What's a limb or two here and there? Where do you draw the line?
Yes, I'm sure the food industry's strategy is to kill or injure as many of their consumers as possible.
#WinningStrategy
But your post didn't answer the question I asked.
You simply do not need to add extra sugar to food. There is enough in it already. The food industry encourages over consumption of their products to maximize profits.
How are you defining extra sugar? Are you talking about adding sugar to something that's already sweet? I agree that would be overkill. Are you talking about the dreaded HFCS? Because when your body breaks it down, it treats it the same as any other sugar.
Now, I do think that processed foods have more sugar then they need in them, but it's for the same reason they use MSG: cheap way to add flavor. Which, incidentally, means I can't eat a lot of processed foods anymore since they're putting MSG back into them and my digestive system breaks out the pitchforks and torches when I get a little in my system. ><
But sugar itself? Sugar is not evil. It does not come from the Dark Side, it does not target your body and decay it from the inside, nor does it travel directly to your fat cells and build expansions. Sugar itself is a necessary nutrient you need. Just make sure you're getting a reasonable amount, and if you eat a lot of processed meals, make sure you keep track of it so you don't get too much.
Ok the point I'm making is that extracting sugar from food to use on other food is the problem. Stopping doing that is like a "dumb solution" if you like as people seem to be unable to control their eating. Everyone here is probably used to tracking what they eat so it's easy for us. Some people just cannot control themselves and just end up dying from it. All the information is out there on how to be healthy so why are there so many obese people? They just can't do it. Stopping adding sugar to foods would prevent a lot of this from happening. I know it's just a dream really because of all the money involved and corporate power blah blah
So I really am trying to understand your point here. Are you saying that no one should consume sugar in any form, regardless of whether or not they have a medical reason to restrict it, because someday we MIGHT have medical issues - IR, etc?...
I think his point is more leaning towards "if you consume any sugar in any form, even one grain of it, you'll get da diabeetus and die. 100% of the people, 100% of the time."
The points being conveniently omitted/ignored are:
1) All carbohydrates are metabolized into sugars. No matter how "clean" or "healthy" or "organic" or "complex" they are.
2) Protein causes a BG spike nearly identical to carbs. So if sugarz iz da debil, proteinz must be da debilz too.
did you even read the link that we posted? The spike is about the same. So if you eat protein you are creating the same insulin spike that you somehow think is bad.
I didn't read the article, but I already know plenty about this topic. The answer is that #1 is mostly true - Fiber is a carb that does not convert to glucose. Sugar alcohols do not convert to glucose at 100%.
As for #2, no... not even close. After the amino acids are separated out from the protein itself, some of those amino acids can be converted to glucose. It doesn't happen even close to the same speed as net carbs converting to glucose and some amino acids can't be converted to glucose at all (at least not in humans).
These are the reasons why people like me, who monitor our blood glucose (BG) constantly and manually calculate and cause introduction of insulin into our bodies, do not calculate insulin the same way when eating protein as we do when eating net carbs. I've seen the effects of carbs and proteins on BG every day for decades.
I am assuming you have a medical condition that requires you to monitor your blood glucose, yes?
for the rest of us with no medical condition it does not really matter.
Why doesn't it matter?0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
While #1 is true, #2 isn't very accurate. A link was already posted earlier in this thread that showed the BG spike is a good bit lower from protein. Also, most people do not eat equal amounts of protein and carbs in a day, so that's an irrelevant point. The average person is not going to be chowing down on so much protein in a day that there BG would rise from that as much as from carbs.WinoGelato wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »Couldn't be bothered to read everything so don't know if this has been mentioned. A big part of how unhealthy sugar can be is how your body deals with it. I am diabetic and regulary monitor my blood sugar levels so I have a good idea what is going on. When I was at my worst a bowl of oatmeal with milk would send my bloodsugar into the unhealthy range. Now I have improved my health by losing weight, cardio and weight training. I also only eat sugar from natural sources like fruit and milk. By doing all of this I can enjoy eating double the recommended sugar intake and still stay healthy. I did it for three months and had a blood test. My bloodsugar levels were still in the healthy range although slightly increaded. They rose from 30 to 35. The healthy range is 20 to 42 I think. I'm not saying try and eat loads of sugary things and stay healthy anyway as it is not wise to stress your body with excess sugar intake. It's just interesting to have this information. You can get far ahead of any health risks with the correct lifestyle and occasionaly enjoy treats and stay perfectly healthy. One day I at two whole pizzas to myself so I still indulge. Being fitter and stronger helps you out in everyday life too.
No one disputes that sugar needs to be watched by diabetics. That doesn't not apply to all.
Yeah but it's just you can be even further away from any health risks by at least not eating added sugar. It's not black and white, these things sneak up on people. Once something happens that you can't change you wish so bad that you lived differently.Added sugar has no benefits at all. It's a pure addiction.
Absolutely false.
Ok what are the benefits of adding sugar to food?
Energy. Calories (not EVERYONE is trying to lose weight). Taste. Carbs. Fuel for workouts.
All this is available without added sugar. You are conditioned to be this way. I don't need a sugar high to hit a deadlift PR.
So, your contention is that the availablility of alternatives means that each individual alternative has zero benefits?
Adding sugar to food is not an alternative. It's a food industry strategy and it works big time. The cost? Well I'm sure they don' t lose any sleep after they get tired counting their millions of dollars. Who cares if people get sick and die? What's a limb or two here and there? Where do you draw the line?
Yes, I'm sure the food industry's strategy is to kill or injure as many of their consumers as possible.
#WinningStrategy
But your post didn't answer the question I asked.
You simply do not need to add extra sugar to food. There is enough in it already. The food industry encourages over consumption of their products to maximize profits.
How are you defining extra sugar? Are you talking about adding sugar to something that's already sweet? I agree that would be overkill. Are you talking about the dreaded HFCS? Because when your body breaks it down, it treats it the same as any other sugar.
Now, I do think that processed foods have more sugar then they need in them, but it's for the same reason they use MSG: cheap way to add flavor. Which, incidentally, means I can't eat a lot of processed foods anymore since they're putting MSG back into them and my digestive system breaks out the pitchforks and torches when I get a little in my system. ><
But sugar itself? Sugar is not evil. It does not come from the Dark Side, it does not target your body and decay it from the inside, nor does it travel directly to your fat cells and build expansions. Sugar itself is a necessary nutrient you need. Just make sure you're getting a reasonable amount, and if you eat a lot of processed meals, make sure you keep track of it so you don't get too much.
Ok the point I'm making is that extracting sugar from food to use on other food is the problem. Stopping doing that is like a "dumb solution" if you like as people seem to be unable to control their eating. Everyone here is probably used to tracking what they eat so it's easy for us. Some people just cannot control themselves and just end up dying from it. All the information is out there on how to be healthy so why are there so many obese people? They just can't do it. Stopping adding sugar to foods would prevent a lot of this from happening. I know it's just a dream really because of all the money involved and corporate power blah blah
So I really am trying to understand your point here. Are you saying that no one should consume sugar in any form, regardless of whether or not they have a medical reason to restrict it, because someday we MIGHT have medical issues - IR, etc?...
I think his point is more leaning towards "if you consume any sugar in any form, even one grain of it, you'll get da diabeetus and die. 100% of the people, 100% of the time."
The points being conveniently omitted/ignored are:
1) All carbohydrates are metabolized into sugars. No matter how "clean" or "healthy" or "organic" or "complex" they are.
2) Protein causes a BG spike nearly identical to carbs. So if sugarz iz da debil, proteinz must be da debilz too.
did you even read the link that we posted? The spike is about the same. So if you eat protein you are creating the same insulin spike that you somehow think is bad.
I didn't read the article, but I already know plenty about this topic. The answer is that #1 is mostly true - Fiber is a carb that does not convert to glucose. Sugar alcohols do not convert to glucose at 100%.
As for #2, no... not even close. After the amino acids are separated out from the protein itself, some of those amino acids can be converted to glucose. It doesn't happen even close to the same speed as net carbs converting to glucose and some amino acids can't be converted to glucose at all (at least not in humans).
These are the reasons why people like me, who monitor our blood glucose (BG) constantly and manually calculate and cause introduction of insulin into our bodies, do not calculate insulin the same way when eating protein as we do when eating net carbs. I've seen the effects of carbs and proteins on BG every day for decades.
I am assuming you have a medical condition that requires you to monitor your blood glucose, yes?
for the rest of us with no medical condition it does not really matter.
Yes, I have a medical condition that requires me to monitor my blood glucose. Most people do not need to do so, and I'm not suggesting that. Since my point is apparently difficult to understand, here is some additional clarification:
Protein does NOT raise glucose the same amount or at the same speed as net carbs. This is a topic about which I'm extremely knowledgeable and experienced.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
According to Merriam Webster, addiction is a "compulsive need for and use of a habit-forming substance (as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol) characterized by tolerance and by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal; broadly : persistent compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be harmful"
People don't become 'addicted' to sugar any more than they do honey. People do crave sugar if they're used to it, yes. I'm not arguing that. But I've noticed that every single time I've seen a post about someone saying they're 'addicted' to sugar, after a few weeks or even a couple of months, they're fine. When you're used to eating something you like and suddenly cut it out, you're going to crave it. Happened to me when I switched out soda at lunch for tea. But after a month or so, I got used to it and was fine. I wasn't addicted, I was changing a habit. Changing an established habit is HARD, espically when it's one that gives you pleasure. That doesn't mean you're addicted to it. Real addiction isn't cured in a week or a month. In fact, for most addicts, it's a life-long struggle. That's why so many people go through cycles of trying to quit drugs, smoking, or alcohol. Rehab centers have lots of repeat customers for that reason. And in my opinion, saying you're addicted to sugar trivializes real addictions.
Sugar itself is a necessary nutrient your body needs. How you get that sugar can be horribly unhealthy and you can get way too much, but it's something you actually need. That's not true of real addictive substances. Your body doesn't NEED alcohol or crack to survive normally. If I never drink alcohol again, my body will survive just fine. If I cut out ALL sugar, my body will shut down before too long.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
According to Merriam Webster, addiction is a "compulsive need for and use of a habit-forming substance (as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol) characterized by tolerance and by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal; broadly : persistent compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be harmful"
People don't become 'addicted' to sugar any more than they do honey. People do crave sugar if they're used to it, yes. I'm not arguing that. But I've noticed that every single time I've seen a post about someone saying they're 'addicted' to sugar, after a few weeks or even a couple of months, they're fine. When you're used to eating something you like and suddenly cut it out, you're going to crave it. Happened to me when I switched out soda at lunch for tea. But after a month or so, I got used to it and was fine. I wasn't addicted, I was changing a habit. Changing an established habit is HARD, espically when it's one that gives you pleasure. That doesn't mean you're addicted to it. Real addiction isn't cured in a week or a month. In fact, for most addicts, it's a life-long struggle. That's why so many people go through cycles of trying to quit drugs, smoking, or alcohol. Rehab centers have lots of repeat customers for that reason. And in my opinion, saying you're addicted to sugar trivializes real addictions.
Sugar itself is a necessary nutrient your body needs. How you get that sugar can be horribly unhealthy and you can get way too much, but it's something you actually need. That's not true of real addictive substances. Your body doesn't NEED alcohol or crack to survive normally. If I never drink alcohol again, my body will survive just fine. If I cut out ALL sugar, my body will shut down before too long.
Awesome post!!0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
While #1 is true, #2 isn't very accurate. A link was already posted earlier in this thread that showed the BG spike is a good bit lower from protein. Also, most people do not eat equal amounts of protein and carbs in a day, so that's an irrelevant point. The average person is not going to be chowing down on so much protein in a day that there BG would rise from that as much as from carbs.WinoGelato wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »Couldn't be bothered to read everything so don't know if this has been mentioned. A big part of how unhealthy sugar can be is how your body deals with it. I am diabetic and regulary monitor my blood sugar levels so I have a good idea what is going on. When I was at my worst a bowl of oatmeal with milk would send my bloodsugar into the unhealthy range. Now I have improved my health by losing weight, cardio and weight training. I also only eat sugar from natural sources like fruit and milk. By doing all of this I can enjoy eating double the recommended sugar intake and still stay healthy. I did it for three months and had a blood test. My bloodsugar levels were still in the healthy range although slightly increaded. They rose from 30 to 35. The healthy range is 20 to 42 I think. I'm not saying try and eat loads of sugary things and stay healthy anyway as it is not wise to stress your body with excess sugar intake. It's just interesting to have this information. You can get far ahead of any health risks with the correct lifestyle and occasionaly enjoy treats and stay perfectly healthy. One day I at two whole pizzas to myself so I still indulge. Being fitter and stronger helps you out in everyday life too.
No one disputes that sugar needs to be watched by diabetics. That doesn't not apply to all.
Yeah but it's just you can be even further away from any health risks by at least not eating added sugar. It's not black and white, these things sneak up on people. Once something happens that you can't change you wish so bad that you lived differently.Added sugar has no benefits at all. It's a pure addiction.
Absolutely false.
Ok what are the benefits of adding sugar to food?
Energy. Calories (not EVERYONE is trying to lose weight). Taste. Carbs. Fuel for workouts.
All this is available without added sugar. You are conditioned to be this way. I don't need a sugar high to hit a deadlift PR.
So, your contention is that the availablility of alternatives means that each individual alternative has zero benefits?
Adding sugar to food is not an alternative. It's a food industry strategy and it works big time. The cost? Well I'm sure they don' t lose any sleep after they get tired counting their millions of dollars. Who cares if people get sick and die? What's a limb or two here and there? Where do you draw the line?
Yes, I'm sure the food industry's strategy is to kill or injure as many of their consumers as possible.
#WinningStrategy
But your post didn't answer the question I asked.
You simply do not need to add extra sugar to food. There is enough in it already. The food industry encourages over consumption of their products to maximize profits.
How are you defining extra sugar? Are you talking about adding sugar to something that's already sweet? I agree that would be overkill. Are you talking about the dreaded HFCS? Because when your body breaks it down, it treats it the same as any other sugar.
Now, I do think that processed foods have more sugar then they need in them, but it's for the same reason they use MSG: cheap way to add flavor. Which, incidentally, means I can't eat a lot of processed foods anymore since they're putting MSG back into them and my digestive system breaks out the pitchforks and torches when I get a little in my system. ><
But sugar itself? Sugar is not evil. It does not come from the Dark Side, it does not target your body and decay it from the inside, nor does it travel directly to your fat cells and build expansions. Sugar itself is a necessary nutrient you need. Just make sure you're getting a reasonable amount, and if you eat a lot of processed meals, make sure you keep track of it so you don't get too much.
Ok the point I'm making is that extracting sugar from food to use on other food is the problem. Stopping doing that is like a "dumb solution" if you like as people seem to be unable to control their eating. Everyone here is probably used to tracking what they eat so it's easy for us. Some people just cannot control themselves and just end up dying from it. All the information is out there on how to be healthy so why are there so many obese people? They just can't do it. Stopping adding sugar to foods would prevent a lot of this from happening. I know it's just a dream really because of all the money involved and corporate power blah blah
So I really am trying to understand your point here. Are you saying that no one should consume sugar in any form, regardless of whether or not they have a medical reason to restrict it, because someday we MIGHT have medical issues - IR, etc?...
I think his point is more leaning towards "if you consume any sugar in any form, even one grain of it, you'll get da diabeetus and die. 100% of the people, 100% of the time."
The points being conveniently omitted/ignored are:
1) All carbohydrates are metabolized into sugars. No matter how "clean" or "healthy" or "organic" or "complex" they are.
2) Protein causes a BG spike nearly identical to carbs. So if sugarz iz da debil, proteinz must be da debilz too.
did you even read the link that we posted? The spike is about the same. So if you eat protein you are creating the same insulin spike that you somehow think is bad.
I didn't read the article, but I already know plenty about this topic. The answer is that #1 is mostly true - Fiber is a carb that does not convert to glucose. Sugar alcohols do not convert to glucose at 100%.
As for #2, no... not even close. After the amino acids are separated out from the protein itself, some of those amino acids can be converted to glucose. It doesn't happen even close to the same speed as net carbs converting to glucose and some amino acids can't be converted to glucose at all (at least not in humans).
These are the reasons why people like me, who monitor our blood glucose (BG) constantly and manually calculate and cause introduction of insulin into our bodies, do not calculate insulin the same way when eating protein as we do when eating net carbs. I've seen the effects of carbs and proteins on BG every day for decades.
I am assuming you have a medical condition that requires you to monitor your blood glucose, yes?
for the rest of us with no medical condition it does not really matter.
Why doesn't it matter?
because people without a medical condition don't need to monitor blood glucose...0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
While #1 is true, #2 isn't very accurate. A link was already posted earlier in this thread that showed the BG spike is a good bit lower from protein. Also, most people do not eat equal amounts of protein and carbs in a day, so that's an irrelevant point. The average person is not going to be chowing down on so much protein in a day that there BG would rise from that as much as from carbs.WinoGelato wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »Couldn't be bothered to read everything so don't know if this has been mentioned. A big part of how unhealthy sugar can be is how your body deals with it. I am diabetic and regulary monitor my blood sugar levels so I have a good idea what is going on. When I was at my worst a bowl of oatmeal with milk would send my bloodsugar into the unhealthy range. Now I have improved my health by losing weight, cardio and weight training. I also only eat sugar from natural sources like fruit and milk. By doing all of this I can enjoy eating double the recommended sugar intake and still stay healthy. I did it for three months and had a blood test. My bloodsugar levels were still in the healthy range although slightly increaded. They rose from 30 to 35. The healthy range is 20 to 42 I think. I'm not saying try and eat loads of sugary things and stay healthy anyway as it is not wise to stress your body with excess sugar intake. It's just interesting to have this information. You can get far ahead of any health risks with the correct lifestyle and occasionaly enjoy treats and stay perfectly healthy. One day I at two whole pizzas to myself so I still indulge. Being fitter and stronger helps you out in everyday life too.
No one disputes that sugar needs to be watched by diabetics. That doesn't not apply to all.
Yeah but it's just you can be even further away from any health risks by at least not eating added sugar. It's not black and white, these things sneak up on people. Once something happens that you can't change you wish so bad that you lived differently.Added sugar has no benefits at all. It's a pure addiction.
Absolutely false.
Ok what are the benefits of adding sugar to food?
Energy. Calories (not EVERYONE is trying to lose weight). Taste. Carbs. Fuel for workouts.
All this is available without added sugar. You are conditioned to be this way. I don't need a sugar high to hit a deadlift PR.
So, your contention is that the availablility of alternatives means that each individual alternative has zero benefits?
Adding sugar to food is not an alternative. It's a food industry strategy and it works big time. The cost? Well I'm sure they don' t lose any sleep after they get tired counting their millions of dollars. Who cares if people get sick and die? What's a limb or two here and there? Where do you draw the line?
Yes, I'm sure the food industry's strategy is to kill or injure as many of their consumers as possible.
#WinningStrategy
But your post didn't answer the question I asked.
You simply do not need to add extra sugar to food. There is enough in it already. The food industry encourages over consumption of their products to maximize profits.
How are you defining extra sugar? Are you talking about adding sugar to something that's already sweet? I agree that would be overkill. Are you talking about the dreaded HFCS? Because when your body breaks it down, it treats it the same as any other sugar.
Now, I do think that processed foods have more sugar then they need in them, but it's for the same reason they use MSG: cheap way to add flavor. Which, incidentally, means I can't eat a lot of processed foods anymore since they're putting MSG back into them and my digestive system breaks out the pitchforks and torches when I get a little in my system. ><
But sugar itself? Sugar is not evil. It does not come from the Dark Side, it does not target your body and decay it from the inside, nor does it travel directly to your fat cells and build expansions. Sugar itself is a necessary nutrient you need. Just make sure you're getting a reasonable amount, and if you eat a lot of processed meals, make sure you keep track of it so you don't get too much.
Ok the point I'm making is that extracting sugar from food to use on other food is the problem. Stopping doing that is like a "dumb solution" if you like as people seem to be unable to control their eating. Everyone here is probably used to tracking what they eat so it's easy for us. Some people just cannot control themselves and just end up dying from it. All the information is out there on how to be healthy so why are there so many obese people? They just can't do it. Stopping adding sugar to foods would prevent a lot of this from happening. I know it's just a dream really because of all the money involved and corporate power blah blah
So I really am trying to understand your point here. Are you saying that no one should consume sugar in any form, regardless of whether or not they have a medical reason to restrict it, because someday we MIGHT have medical issues - IR, etc?...
I think his point is more leaning towards "if you consume any sugar in any form, even one grain of it, you'll get da diabeetus and die. 100% of the people, 100% of the time."
The points being conveniently omitted/ignored are:
1) All carbohydrates are metabolized into sugars. No matter how "clean" or "healthy" or "organic" or "complex" they are.
2) Protein causes a BG spike nearly identical to carbs. So if sugarz iz da debil, proteinz must be da debilz too.
did you even read the link that we posted? The spike is about the same. So if you eat protein you are creating the same insulin spike that you somehow think is bad.
I didn't read the article, but I already know plenty about this topic. The answer is that #1 is mostly true - Fiber is a carb that does not convert to glucose. Sugar alcohols do not convert to glucose at 100%.
As for #2, no... not even close. After the amino acids are separated out from the protein itself, some of those amino acids can be converted to glucose. It doesn't happen even close to the same speed as net carbs converting to glucose and some amino acids can't be converted to glucose at all (at least not in humans).
These are the reasons why people like me, who monitor our blood glucose (BG) constantly and manually calculate and cause introduction of insulin into our bodies, do not calculate insulin the same way when eating protein as we do when eating net carbs. I've seen the effects of carbs and proteins on BG every day for decades.
I am assuming you have a medical condition that requires you to monitor your blood glucose, yes?
for the rest of us with no medical condition it does not really matter.
Why doesn't it matter?
because people without a medical condition don't need to monitor blood glucose...
Please read my clarification above. I'm not suggesting people monitor blood glucose when there is no medical need to do so. I'm simply pointing out that my experience on the topic of how various macros affect BG is quite extensive. I'll add at this point that my education on such matters is more thorough than a typical MD. None of that is my point, but rather an explanation of how I know my point is correct.0 -
ReeseG4350 wrote: »"It's not the sugar, it's the company it keeps."
And that's pretty true, actually. Most of the time, you find your added sugars in products full of fats. So, limiting one may help you limit the other. But, a little added sugar is not, as many have already noted, a bad thing.
This is absolutely correct. But there is also a proviso as to what kinds of fats are better or worse for your body.Neither is a little fat. In fact, it's necessary.
Bottom line, of course, is - all things in moderation.
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