what do you do to lower your sugar intake?
Replies
-
P.S. Just took a quick look at your diary. Your mileage may vary, because satiation & cravings seem to behave very differently for everyone . . . but if I ate as little protein as you often do, I would be having mad cravings for all kinds of things. (NB: I'm vegetarian, too, though ovo/lacto, so I'm not looking for 1g/lb bodyweight as some do . . . but you've got some days in there with only 20-30g, while getting a hearty level of exercise!)
Eeep!
Yes this is definitely something i need to work on as well 0 -
Sugar is implicated in triglycerides. Eat fewer processed foods and eat whole fruit instead of drinking juice. Don't add sugar to anything. Your sweet tooth might disappear if you don't cater to it.
It isn't necessary to give up all added sugar in order to control triglycerides. Lowering added sugar is not the same as cutting out added sugar. And regular exercise goes a long way to improving lipid profiles.
Just eat sensibly. Nothing wrong with sugary treats but it's usually best if they don't comprise a large percentage of your diet. And stay active.0 -
longlostsea wrote: »P.S. Just took a quick look at your diary. Your mileage may vary, because satiation & cravings seem to behave very differently for everyone . . . but if I ate as little protein as you often do, I would be having mad cravings for all kinds of things. (NB: I'm vegetarian, too, though ovo/lacto, so I'm not looking for 1g/lb bodyweight as some do . . . but you've got some days in there with only 20-30g, while getting a hearty level of exercise!)
Eeep! Yes this is definitely something i need to work on as well
Unless you're a cat. Then in that case, you're doing just fine.0 -
Yes, seriously.
0 -
Mapalicious wrote: »OMG i'm such a sugar-holic. But I've lost 125 lbs and kept it off (mostly w/in 20 lb range) for 8 years.
First of all, there are many things I had to learn that have more sugar than you'd imagine:- Yogurt that isn't plain
- Ketchup
- Salad dressings (sometimes...especially the 'fat free' ones - make your own)
- Wine & beer
- Almost ANYTHING "lowfat" or "nonfat" (then conversely, many "sugar free" things are packed with carbs)
- Some brands of peanut butter (go all-natural!)
- BBQ sauce
- Protein bars
- Most non-dairy milk
- Chinese food (most)
- Dried cranberries (really any dried fruit, but dried cranberries have a CRAP ton)
- Energy drinks (and soda, of course)
- Pasta sauce (sad but mostly true)
- Granola (HOLY COW, SO MUCH SUGAR!)
- Store-bought cole slaw
- FRUIT JUICE - this stuff is often just as bad as soda and we give it to our kids & it rots their teeth.
Second, you can get nutrients from things other than fruit. Go, veggies!
Third, if my sweet tooth gets out of hand, I do a 5-10 day no-added-sugar extravaganza.
Basically, I "re-set" my tastebuds & body (totally scientific term here, guys) so that I don't crave sugar anymore. It's amazing how well it works. My general rules are NO artificial sweetener, NO sweetener in tea or coffee, NO juice, soda, wine, beer, LOW or NONE of most of the items listed above. I might have a couple raisins every other evening so I get a bit of sweetness. I highly recommend it
It certainly won't hurt - and at the very least you'll see how much your habits are based around high-sugar things, if you have to think twice about it!
As I have been recently paying more attention to my sugar I noticed... like you with the cranberries,
what the heck is the point of adding sugar to dried fruit?! Why do they do that to us.
I might try your sugar reset. Someone else suggested a 30 day similar plan.
0 -
-
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »I've cut down on my sugar intake by reducing my overall caloric intake. Now that I don't eat as much overall, I'm pretty much forced to lower my sugar intake. I personally don't even track sugar.
However, judging from the fact that this thread has gone on for 5 pages, I have a feeling that this answer will be lost on many and you all will keep arguing about how sugar is going to kill us all.
I'll be over here enjoying my chocolate biscotti that I will be fitting into my daily goals.
Hahahaha i hear ya. Thanks for your input.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »cross2bear wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »What do you have to say in response to the two David Katz articles that I linked and quoted, that directly discuss this issue?
Wiki on Katz: David L. Katz (born 20 February 1963 in Los Angeles, California) is a nutritionist and the founding director of the Prevention Research Center at Yale University, as well as an associate professor of public health practice at the Yale University School of Medicine. In 2005, Katz was appointed the associate director for nutrition science at the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale.
I would want to know what association Dr Katz (and Yale) have with the International Sugar Association and what kind of money they have given him (or yale) to produce his studies.
Seriously?
Yes, seriously - you have no idea how powerful the International Sugar Association is and what they can make happen.
This is an excellent documentary http://tvo.org/video/documentaries/sugar-coated
0 -
Mapalicious wrote: »longlostsea wrote: »P.S. Just took a quick look at your diary. Your mileage may vary, because satiation & cravings seem to behave very differently for everyone . . . but if I ate as little protein as you often do, I would be having mad cravings for all kinds of things. (NB: I'm vegetarian, too, though ovo/lacto, so I'm not looking for 1g/lb bodyweight as some do . . . but you've got some days in there with only 20-30g, while getting a hearty level of exercise!)
Eeep! Yes this is definitely something i need to work on as well
Unless you're a cat. Then in that case, you're doing just fine.
Not cat. Haha0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Sugar is implicated in triglycerides. Eat fewer processed foods and eat whole fruit instead of drinking juice. Don't add sugar to anything. Your sweet tooth might disappear if you don't cater to it.
It isn't necessary to give up all added sugar in order to control triglycerides. Lowering added sugar is not the same as cutting out added sugar. And regular exercise goes a long way to improving lipid profiles.
Just eat sensibly. Nothing wrong with sugary treats but it's usually best if they don't comprise a large percentage of your diet. And stay active.
Thanks for your point of veiw!0 -
cross2bear wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »cross2bear wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »What do you have to say in response to the two David Katz articles that I linked and quoted, that directly discuss this issue?
Wiki on Katz: David L. Katz (born 20 February 1963 in Los Angeles, California) is a nutritionist and the founding director of the Prevention Research Center at Yale University, as well as an associate professor of public health practice at the Yale University School of Medicine. In 2005, Katz was appointed the associate director for nutrition science at the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale.
I would want to know what association Dr Katz (and Yale) have with the International Sugar Association and what kind of money they have given him (or yale) to produce his studies.
Seriously?
Yes, seriously - you have no idea how powerful the International Sugar Association is and what they can make happen.
This is an excellent documentary http://tvo.org/video/documentaries/sugar-coated
This Doc is OK...I am not into the idea that 'sugar is toxic' but holy CRAP does the sugar industry do some fancy footwork to get folks to consume more sugar than they should. For example, about 40% of CHILDREN'S CEREAL (as in...stocked in super markets at child's-eye-height, and advertised with colourful cartoons)...is 30-40% sugar BY WEIGHT. What the sweet crap? It's horrible for kids, and they develop a sweet tooth and bodily sugar 'dependency' of sorts very, very early. And that's just the tip of the iceberg...0 -
longlostsea wrote: »Mapalicious wrote: »longlostsea wrote: »P.S. Just took a quick look at your diary. Your mileage may vary, because satiation & cravings seem to behave very differently for everyone . . . but if I ate as little protein as you often do, I would be having mad cravings for all kinds of things. (NB: I'm vegetarian, too, though ovo/lacto, so I'm not looking for 1g/lb bodyweight as some do . . . but you've got some days in there with only 20-30g, while getting a hearty level of exercise!)
Eeep! Yes this is definitely something i need to work on as well
Unless you're a cat. Then in that case, you're doing just fine.
Not cat. Haha
aw bummer0 -
Hello, Looking to lower my fat%...... send me some tips and add me 0
-
korrinnichole wrote: »Hello, Looking to lower my fat%...... send me some tips and add me
Maybe start your own thread?0 -
goldthistime wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »My favorite example, from my own recipe box:
One of my chocolate chip cookies: 206 calories, 14 grams of sugar (sucrose, as I don't cook with HFCS).
150 g apple: 78 calories, 16 grams of sugar (a mix of fructose, sucrose, and glucose)
Yes, the chocolate chip cookie will be harder for me not to overeat. Depending on what else I've had in my day, the apple may add more nutrients I need (probably not, though, given how I tend to eat) and has more fiber. Neither is necessarily more filling, as it really depends (this is for me, as I can find a cookie filling). The biggest advantage the apple has, of course, is that it has many fewer calories.
But, of course, the cookie has fewer calories from sugar (and fructose). It has a lot more calories from butter.
Focusing on the differences between the sugars, vs. the differences between the foods makes no sense at all to me.
And if someone ate lots of cookies and no fruit and asked how to decrease their sugar consumption, I'd say "eat fewer cookies and consider whether some other sources of sweetness (although they do have sugar, of course) might work for you and lead to less overeating, like fruit." But that's because I don't think the issue is so much sugar but control and calories.
Interesting comparison. You state that "neither is more filling", although you qualify it with "this is for me".
Just to be clear, I said neither is "necessarily" more filling. People proclaiming what is filling and what is not is a pet peeve of mine, because people vary. Fat usually is not filling for me (nuts sometimes are, sometimes are not, it's weird), yet I'm always being preached to about how filling it is. I do find fruit pretty satisfying, but others (like you) say they do not, and I have no reason to disbelieve them. If hungry between meals I'd usually find either the cookie or the apple satisfying (but the apple has a lot less calories, and I personally try to avoid eating between meals anyway).An apple alone rarely satisfies me, I usually end up grabbing a few nuts to go with it. But for me, cookies are more like an appetite stimulant than a food that satisfies. Looking at how much filling fat there is in your cookies, and given that there is actually less sugar, this doesn't make sense. Maybe it's the lack of fibre? The speed with which glucose enters my blood?
I think it's taste. At least that's why I said both the apple and cookie would be filling, but I'd have a harder time not overeating the cookie (although I can take just one). I will want another cookie independent of hunger (or want to eat the cookie after dinner, when not hungry). I won't have that issue with the apple OR with a sweet snack food I don't care for (like a Twinkie or the average mass-market chocolate bar). I love apples, but that combination of sweet and fat when well done is just more tempting (well, unless you are Eve). ;-)0 -
cross2bear wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »What do you have to say in response to the two David Katz articles that I linked and quoted, that directly discuss this issue?
Wiki on Katz: David L. Katz (born 20 February 1963 in Los Angeles, California) is a nutritionist and the founding director of the Prevention Research Center at Yale University, as well as an associate professor of public health practice at the Yale University School of Medicine. In 2005, Katz was appointed the associate director for nutrition science at the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale.
I would want to know what association Dr Katz (and Yale) have with the International Sugar Association and what kind of money they have given him (or yale) to produce his studies.
Feel free to research it. In that he's far from a sugar apologist, I think that's silly, though. (He's also written elsewhere about the fallacy of claiming that studies backed by a manufacturer are therefore invalid.)0 -
Mapalicious wrote: »cross2bear wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »cross2bear wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »What do you have to say in response to the two David Katz articles that I linked and quoted, that directly discuss this issue?
Wiki on Katz: David L. Katz (born 20 February 1963 in Los Angeles, California) is a nutritionist and the founding director of the Prevention Research Center at Yale University, as well as an associate professor of public health practice at the Yale University School of Medicine. In 2005, Katz was appointed the associate director for nutrition science at the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale.
I would want to know what association Dr Katz (and Yale) have with the International Sugar Association and what kind of money they have given him (or yale) to produce his studies.
Seriously?
Yes, seriously - you have no idea how powerful the International Sugar Association is and what they can make happen.
This is an excellent documentary http://tvo.org/video/documentaries/sugar-coated
This Doc is OK...I am not into the idea that 'sugar is toxic' but holy CRAP does the sugar industry do some fancy footwork to get folks to consume more sugar than they should. For example, about 40% of CHILDREN'S CEREAL (as in...stocked in super markets at child's-eye-height, and advertised with colourful cartoons)...is 30-40% sugar BY WEIGHT. What the sweet crap? It's horrible for kids, and they develop a sweet tooth and bodily sugar 'dependency' of sorts very, very early. And that's just the tip of the iceberg...
Do children's cereals today contain more sugar than back in the 60's and 70's?0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »cross2bear wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »What do you have to say in response to the two David Katz articles that I linked and quoted, that directly discuss this issue?
Wiki on Katz: David L. Katz (born 20 February 1963 in Los Angeles, California) is a nutritionist and the founding director of the Prevention Research Center at Yale University, as well as an associate professor of public health practice at the Yale University School of Medicine. In 2005, Katz was appointed the associate director for nutrition science at the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale.
I would want to know what association Dr Katz (and Yale) have with the International Sugar Association and what kind of money they have given him (or yale) to produce his studies.
Feel free to research it. In that he's far from a sugar apologist, I think that's silly, though. (He's also written elsewhere about the fallacy of claiming that studies backed by a manufacturer are therefore invalid.)
Thanks but I have no interest in getting into a peeing match over this - THAT would be silly. All I did is make a comment followed by some back up info. Acknowledge/dont acknowledge - its all the same to me. Cheers!!0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Do children's cereals today contain more sugar than back in the 60's and 70's?
They might in some form - high fructose corn syrups, additives, etc. Not to mention all the commercials recommend you have it with milk (which has sugar) and a big glass of OJ (even more sugar).
Ingredients on labels go from the highest amount to lowest amount. The first few ingredients in Froot Loops for example are - Sugar, corn flour blend (which breaks down into glucose), wheat flour (again, more glucose), whole grain oat flour.. well you see my point. And this is only for 1 cup of cereal, most bowls will hold 2 cups and kids will fill the whole bowl up.
Now I don't have the ingredients from the 60s or 70s but I don't need them to say that kids shouldn't be eating that.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Mapalicious wrote: »cross2bear wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »cross2bear wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »What do you have to say in response to the two David Katz articles that I linked and quoted, that directly discuss this issue?
Wiki on Katz: David L. Katz (born 20 February 1963 in Los Angeles, California) is a nutritionist and the founding director of the Prevention Research Center at Yale University, as well as an associate professor of public health practice at the Yale University School of Medicine. In 2005, Katz was appointed the associate director for nutrition science at the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale.
I would want to know what association Dr Katz (and Yale) have with the International Sugar Association and what kind of money they have given him (or yale) to produce his studies.
Seriously?
Yes, seriously - you have no idea how powerful the International Sugar Association is and what they can make happen.
This is an excellent documentary http://tvo.org/video/documentaries/sugar-coated
This Doc is OK...I am not into the idea that 'sugar is toxic' but holy CRAP does the sugar industry do some fancy footwork to get folks to consume more sugar than they should. For example, about 40% of CHILDREN'S CEREAL (as in...stocked in super markets at child's-eye-height, and advertised with colourful cartoons)...is 30-40% sugar BY WEIGHT. What the sweet crap? It's horrible for kids, and they develop a sweet tooth and bodily sugar 'dependency' of sorts very, very early. And that's just the tip of the iceberg...
Do children's cereals today contain more sugar than back in the 60's and 70's?
I wonder.
From Salt, Sugar, Fat:
Sugar in cereal first became an issue in the mid-70s, when a dentist, Ira Shannon, measured the sugar in 75 common cereals and found that one-third had levels between 10-25%, another third had 26-50%, and the rest had levels that were even higher, in one case up to 71%. The sweetest ones were also the most heavily marketed to kids.
Others joined in this criticism, including Jean Mayer of Harvard, who was an obesity researcher (and formerly of the Nixon admin).
The following outcry is part of why "Sugar Frosted Flakes" was renamed "Frosted Flakes" and some other cereals similarly changed their name. (But please. That these kinds of cereals are super sugary is well known to all but ostriches.)
That said, there were increasing innovations (like the the addition of a bunch of new cereals that were sweet versions of traditional "healthy" cereals, like Cheerios, or even more blatantly candy (some kind of Cinnabon thing, as well as the marketing of Rice Cripsy Treats as a product to buy vs. a recipe) that recognized that the manufactures were increasingly depending on sugar to keep up with the competition (although companies response to demand or perceived demand -- people SAY they want less sugar, but buy sugary things).0 -
cross2bear wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »cross2bear wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »What do you have to say in response to the two David Katz articles that I linked and quoted, that directly discuss this issue?
Wiki on Katz: David L. Katz (born 20 February 1963 in Los Angeles, California) is a nutritionist and the founding director of the Prevention Research Center at Yale University, as well as an associate professor of public health practice at the Yale University School of Medicine. In 2005, Katz was appointed the associate director for nutrition science at the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale.
I would want to know what association Dr Katz (and Yale) have with the International Sugar Association and what kind of money they have given him (or yale) to produce his studies.
Feel free to research it. In that he's far from a sugar apologist, I think that's silly, though. (He's also written elsewhere about the fallacy of claiming that studies backed by a manufacturer are therefore invalid.)
Thanks but I have no interest in getting into a peeing match over this - THAT would be silly. All I did is make a comment followed by some back up info. Acknowledge/dont acknowledge - its all the same to me. Cheers!!
Uhm... a documentary is not really back up info.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »cross2bear wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »cross2bear wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »What do you have to say in response to the two David Katz articles that I linked and quoted, that directly discuss this issue?
Wiki on Katz: David L. Katz (born 20 February 1963 in Los Angeles, California) is a nutritionist and the founding director of the Prevention Research Center at Yale University, as well as an associate professor of public health practice at the Yale University School of Medicine. In 2005, Katz was appointed the associate director for nutrition science at the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale.
I would want to know what association Dr Katz (and Yale) have with the International Sugar Association and what kind of money they have given him (or yale) to produce his studies.
Feel free to research it. In that he's far from a sugar apologist, I think that's silly, though. (He's also written elsewhere about the fallacy of claiming that studies backed by a manufacturer are therefore invalid.)
Thanks but I have no interest in getting into a peeing match over this - THAT would be silly. All I did is make a comment followed by some back up info. Acknowledge/dont acknowledge - its all the same to me. Cheers!!
Uhm... a documentary is not really back up info.
To each his or her own - cheers!0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Mapalicious wrote: »cross2bear wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »cross2bear wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »What do you have to say in response to the two David Katz articles that I linked and quoted, that directly discuss this issue?
Wiki on Katz: David L. Katz (born 20 February 1963 in Los Angeles, California) is a nutritionist and the founding director of the Prevention Research Center at Yale University, as well as an associate professor of public health practice at the Yale University School of Medicine. In 2005, Katz was appointed the associate director for nutrition science at the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale.
I would want to know what association Dr Katz (and Yale) have with the International Sugar Association and what kind of money they have given him (or yale) to produce his studies.
Seriously?
Yes, seriously - you have no idea how powerful the International Sugar Association is and what they can make happen.
This is an excellent documentary http://tvo.org/video/documentaries/sugar-coated
This Doc is OK...I am not into the idea that 'sugar is toxic' but holy CRAP does the sugar industry do some fancy footwork to get folks to consume more sugar than they should. For example, about 40% of CHILDREN'S CEREAL (as in...stocked in super markets at child's-eye-height, and advertised with colourful cartoons)...is 30-40% sugar BY WEIGHT. What the sweet crap? It's horrible for kids, and they develop a sweet tooth and bodily sugar 'dependency' of sorts very, very early. And that's just the tip of the iceberg...
Do children's cereals today contain more sugar than back in the 60's and 70's?
I wonder.
From Salt, Sugar, Fat:
Sugar in cereal first became an issue in the mid-70s, when a dentist, Ira Shannon, measured the sugar in 75 common cereals and found that one-third had levels between 10-25%, another third had 26-50%, and the rest had levels that were even higher, in one case up to 71%. The sweetest ones were also the most heavily marketed to kids.
Others joined in this criticism, including Jean Mayer of Harvard, who was an obesity researcher (and formerly of the Nixon admin).
The following outcry is part of why "Sugar Frosted Flakes" was renamed "Frosted Flakes" and some other cereals similarly changed their name. (But please. That these kinds of cereals are super sugary is well known to all but ostriches.)
That said, there were increasing innovations (like the the addition of a bunch of new cereals that were sweet versions of traditional "healthy" cereals, like Cheerios, or even more blatantly candy (some kind of Cinnabon thing, as well as the marketing of Rice Cripsy Treats as a product to buy vs. a recipe) that recognized that the manufactures were increasingly depending on sugar to keep up with the competition (although companies response to demand or perceived demand -- people SAY they want less sugar, but buy sugary things).
When I was kid in the 60's and 70's we ate sugar cereal for breakfast every day. On the occasions we had something like plain corn flakes or Cheerios we put sugar in the milk to make them take good. I've never felt as if I had a 'sugar dependency'.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Mapalicious wrote: »cross2bear wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »cross2bear wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »What do you have to say in response to the two David Katz articles that I linked and quoted, that directly discuss this issue?
Wiki on Katz: David L. Katz (born 20 February 1963 in Los Angeles, California) is a nutritionist and the founding director of the Prevention Research Center at Yale University, as well as an associate professor of public health practice at the Yale University School of Medicine. In 2005, Katz was appointed the associate director for nutrition science at the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale.
I would want to know what association Dr Katz (and Yale) have with the International Sugar Association and what kind of money they have given him (or yale) to produce his studies.
Seriously?
Yes, seriously - you have no idea how powerful the International Sugar Association is and what they can make happen.
This is an excellent documentary http://tvo.org/video/documentaries/sugar-coated
This Doc is OK...I am not into the idea that 'sugar is toxic' but holy CRAP does the sugar industry do some fancy footwork to get folks to consume more sugar than they should. For example, about 40% of CHILDREN'S CEREAL (as in...stocked in super markets at child's-eye-height, and advertised with colourful cartoons)...is 30-40% sugar BY WEIGHT. What the sweet crap? It's horrible for kids, and they develop a sweet tooth and bodily sugar 'dependency' of sorts very, very early. And that's just the tip of the iceberg...
Do children's cereals today contain more sugar than back in the 60's and 70's?
I wonder.
From Salt, Sugar, Fat:
Sugar in cereal first became an issue in the mid-70s, when a dentist, Ira Shannon, measured the sugar in 75 common cereals and found that one-third had levels between 10-25%, another third had 26-50%, and the rest had levels that were even higher, in one case up to 71%. The sweetest ones were also the most heavily marketed to kids.
Others joined in this criticism, including Jean Mayer of Harvard, who was an obesity researcher (and formerly of the Nixon admin).
The following outcry is part of why "Sugar Frosted Flakes" was renamed "Frosted Flakes" and some other cereals similarly changed their name. (But please. That these kinds of cereals are super sugary is well known to all but ostriches.)
That said, there were increasing innovations (like the the addition of a bunch of new cereals that were sweet versions of traditional "healthy" cereals, like Cheerios, or even more blatantly candy (some kind of Cinnabon thing, as well as the marketing of Rice Cripsy Treats as a product to buy vs. a recipe) that recognized that the manufactures were increasingly depending on sugar to keep up with the competition (although companies response to demand or perceived demand -- people SAY they want less sugar, but buy sugary things).
When I was kid in the 60's and 70's we ate sugar cereal for breakfast every day. On the occasions we had something like plain corn flakes or Cheerios we put sugar in the milk to make them take good. I've never felt as if I had a 'sugar dependency'.
Yeah -- same with my childhood in the 70s and 80s, except that I never liked cold cereal and only ate it when spending the night with a friend (since we were taught that it was rude not to eat what was offered, when a guest). Pretty much everyone ate that stuff and yet childhood obesity was still pretty rare -- there was like one overweight kid a year in my grade. My sister put an insane amount of sugar in the milk, and yet she isn't that into sweet foods as an adult and has never been overweight. The one who didn't like the cereal, me, is the one who has gained and now lost weight, and for me it was not particularly about sugar, which I can mostly take or leave.0 -
sheridanlugo wrote: »I actually just kicked my sugar habit, gradually, not all at once. What helped me stop eating sugar was actually doing research on what excess sugar does to the body and how it's as addictive as cocaine. Once I knew more about sugar, it was easier to say no to it. I started by cutting out all non-water beverages except for the occasional unsweetened tea. Then I swapped dessert for fruit. What helped whenever I was craving sugar was making banana ice cream. All it is is frozen bananas blended in a food processor with a splash of almond milk (or milk of choice), along with any flavoring you prefer. I personally like adding a bit of peanut butter, it's delicious! After cutting out desserts I then cut out all the "hidden" sugars of my diet, which includes things like a seemingly healthy can of marinara sauce that actually has 24g of sugar. Lastly, I ate more veggies and less fruit to get rid of even more fruit in my diet.
Good luck, hope this helped!
The idea that sugar is as addictive as cocaine and the fact that you were able to quit without medical intervention or even some sort of support group are diametrically opposed to one another.
I've dealt with addicts. The claim that sugar is just as addictive as cocaine makes me angry.
I've never seen anyone desperate enough for a sugar fix that they were willing to sell their body to strangers, steal or abandon their children for a hit.0 -
That's like saying "you know what helped me give up heroin? Learning it was addictive and probably not very good for me. Once I knew that, it became easy to say no."0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »That's like saying "you know what helped me give up heroin? Learning it was addictive and probably not very good for me. Once I knew that, it became easy to say no."
"It was easy for me to power through the seizures and gut-wrenching diarrhea because I knew my body was detoxing from the heroin and that it was normal to feel like this for a while. Now that I've been heroin-free for two weeks, I don't even crave it anymore!"
-said no one, ever0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Carlos_421 wrote: »sheridanlugo wrote: »I actually just kicked my sugar habit, gradually, not all at once. What helped me stop eating sugar was actually doing research on what excess sugar does to the body and how it's as addictive as cocaine. Once I knew more about sugar, it was easier to say no to it. I started by cutting out all non-water beverages except for the occasional unsweetened tea. Then I swapped dessert for fruit. What helped whenever I was craving sugar was making banana ice cream. All it is is frozen bananas blended in a food processor with a splash of almond milk (or milk of choice), along with any flavoring you prefer. I personally like adding a bit of peanut butter, it's delicious! After cutting out desserts I then cut out all the "hidden" sugars of my diet, which includes things like a seemingly healthy can of marinara sauce that actually has 24g of sugar. Lastly, I ate more veggies and less fruit to get rid of even more fruit in my diet.
Good luck, hope this helped!
The idea that sugar is as addictive as cocaine and the fact that you were able to quit without medical intervention or even some sort of support group are diametrically opposed to one another.
I've dealt with addicts. The claim that sugar is just as addictive as cocaine makes me angry.
I've never seen anyone desperate enough for a sugar fix that they were willing to sell their body to strangers, steal or abandon their children for a hit.
I think this is a case in which people entirely mis-interpret scientific findings. It has been shown that sugar lights up the dopamine receptors, like in drug abuse (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16460879). It has been shown to cause dependency (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2235907/). Sugar has also been shown to becoming a behavior motivator (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12488799) - leading people to eat more sugar.
This article abstract about the sugar/drug analogy I find particularly interesting: http://journals.lww.com/co-clinicalnutrition/Abstract/2013/07000/Sugar_addiction___pushing_the_drug_sugar_analogy.11.aspx
I agree - the analogy may seem to denigrate or belittle the incredible work that people who quit hard drugs do. So perhaps it is a question of degree (not kind) and accessibility, and ease of initiating addiction. Sure, withdrawal may not be as bad with sugar, but the neural pathways are the same. The problem is, sugar isn't nearly as regulated/expensive/hard-to-get/frowned-upon as hard drugs. We feed it to our children in their bottles (apple juice, etc), and start their days off with it (most childrens' cereals). People can barely drink water, tea, coffee, or any drink without wanting it to taste 'sweet!' I'd say, it's an issue to be aware of.
0 -
I expect people are tired of me referencing David Katz, but here's an article I thought was pretty balanced and sensible, which quotes him, as well as others: http://www.refinery29.com/2015/01/80504/sugar-addiction-myths?utm_source=email&utm_medium=editorial&utm_content=everywhere&utm_campaign=150114-sugar-addiction-myths
He does fall into the annoying "hidden sugar" thing, but I do think the idea that so much sugar in lots of highly-processed foods affects the palates of some, especially children, could have some merit. (Salt, Sugar, Fat influenced me on this too.) I wonder if the fact that I never ate much of that stuff (and was required to eat vegetables and such when growing up) is part of why it's not an attraction to me. (Although of course I've eaten it from time to time, and had plenty of diet soda in my life, too.)
Anyway, there's a lot more to it, but this bit seems relevant:Sugar isn't a toxin or a drug.
"Absolutely not," Dr. Katz says. "Glucose floats in our bloodstream at all times and without it, we're dead." Evolution built a reward system into our bodies that makes us crave sweet foods because they're a source of energy. "In a natural context, sweet foods fostered survival."
You've likely seen headlines comparing cookies to cocaine (often linked to this student-faculty research project out of Connecticut College), but no study has successfully proven that sugar, or any other food items are comparable to actual drugs. Dr. Katz chalks these claims up to overblown-diet hype. "I’ve treated patients with true drug addictions and I've never seen anything remotely like that related to sugar or any other food ingredient."
Kinsella adds, "it's true that high-sugar foods cause a release of dopamine (the feel-good neurotransmitter). But, so does listening to music. The amount of dopamine released from a high-sugar food is not the same as heroin or cocaine."
Sugar simply cannot cause the damage or dependency that drug abuse can. However, "it does have addictive elements," Dr. Katz notes. "If you're used to eating lots of sugar, you're going to crave it more."... Food manufacturers add sugar to just about everything, but you might be surprised to learn how often it's added to savory items. "There’s more added sugar per calorie in most pasta sauces than in ice cream toppings," Dr. Katz points out. "You'll see many potato chips brands with high-fructose corn syrup sprayed on at the end." That's because sweetness is an appetite stimulant, urging you to eat more. Dr. Katz calls this "stealth sugar," because you don't consciously taste it, but it increases the amount you need to eat to feel satisfied.
It's the same principle with added sodium. "Salt is also an appetite stimulant, and many popular breakfast cereals are a more concentrated source of sodium than just about anything in the salty-snack aisle," Dr. Katz says. "If you hide the salt in there with sugar and other flavors, people won’t know it’s there. But, they'll eat more cereal, finish the box faster, and buy more boxes every year."
Think of the pleasure of eating chocolate with popcorn or peanut butter with jam. The flavors compete, neither one fully saturating your palate. Now imagine eating the jam alone. It might still taste good, but how soon would that straight-up sweetness be too much?
I will note, however, that I am skeptical that sugar actually makes people hungrier. I think it makes them want to eat, for taste, which is different from actually being hungry. I also think humans on average are evolved to want to eat when tasty food is available, because back in the day, eating when we could was helpful, since we might not always have access to it. That's why I continue to think the biggest issue today is not the type of food, but the extreme availability of food and that eating at all times has been normalized. A majority of people likely can graze all day if tasty food is surrounding them and there's no meaningful cost to doing so, and that's the situation we find ourselves in. Some people aren't interested in food when not hungry, but for those of us who will be, it's about finding a way of reimposing structure.
So, back to the original question, for me lowering sugar (and other extra calorie) intake was related to giving up snacking outside of meals/a planned snack.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions