Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
The Sugar Conspiracy
Options
Replies
-
rankinsect wrote: »makingmark wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »The people who seem to be against the idea that sugar can be a problem for people seem to be those for whom sugar has never been a problem. It didn't happen to me so I don't believe it, and that's where Lustig exaggerated: Sugar is not a problem for everybody, but it is a problem for many. Just because the nutrition powers of yesteryear had fat labelled as the nutritional problem child in the 80s, it does not mean that sugar has been mislabelled as a problem nutrient ( or as the scapegoat) today. It IS a problem for some.
Looking within myself did not help me lose weight. The minute I dropped sugar and reduced my carbs I lost weight. Easily and lots of it. You bet I was eating too many calories but I was eating too much because of sugar (and partially due to those carbs which are readily converted to sugar). I didn't have to do any soul searching or suddenly develop great will power in order to lose weight; all I had to do was cut sugar out of my diet and I was much less hungry, I lost my cravings, and the slight thermogenic poperties of a very LCHF diet helped a bit too.
I also love cheese and nuts and overeat those pretty regularly but that's not what made me fat either. Candy, soda, muffins, and unneeded carby plate fillers made me fat. I cut those and replaced them with other macro nutrients (at a slight caloric deficit) and lost weight. Simply cutting calories was not sustainable for more that a week or two for me. Cut sugar too? Suddenly it was easy to lose. It may not be true for all, but it was for me and it is true for many, especially those of us with IR issues (known and undiagnosed). I am not a special snowflake here.
Sure, many people are fine with eating sugar but many aren't. I was fine with sugar until I approached 40, when suddenly I was not. Stating sugar is a problem for all is wrong, and Lustig should stop it. Staing that sugar is NOT a problem for all is just as wrong - claiming it is a scapegoat is incorrect. A better statement might be that sugar is not a problem for some people, although it may become a problem for some of them later, and that it is indeed a problem for some people right now (somewhere between 1/3 to 1/2 it appears to me based on those affected with IR issues like NAFLD, T2D, PCOS, prediabetes, Alzheimer's, as well as some of those who find weight loss difficult without sugar reduction - not a tiny group).
... This thread should probably be moved to the debate section.
"Readily converted to sugar" is another of those phrases that is used to fear monger against it, as if that makes it bad somehow.
You're outright denying in your post that things apart from carbs made you fat. "Oh, I've been overeating this and that and X and Y and Z regularly too but that wasn't the problem, no.". I call BS. If you've been overeating you've been overeating them and they were part of the problem.
I used to eat lots of sugar.
And lots of fat.
And probably protein too.
Like 4+ ham and cheese sandwiches as a single meal? Check.
Wieners with a bunch of fries? Yeah, did that.
Pizza and whatnot? Yup. All lots of it and not a single gram of added sugar. Cutting out sugar would have changed nothing at all, because I like eating. I would have just eaten something else instead.
Yeah no. I can still each 4 oz of cheese in a day and not gain weight. I do it often. Too often, but I can cut other foods from my diet when I do it. I had 4oz of cheese for lunch? Okay, I'll eat less at dinner. No problem. I had a cup of macadamia nuts with coconut for an afternoon "snack". I'll skip dinner. I had a large soda or a bag of jelly bellies? I'm still hungry and I find it harder to regulate my food intake. I can be sure that I'll be hungry for dinner even after a family sized bag of candy.
I tend to overeat cheese more now since I eat lower carb. I don't eat candy or soda any longer. Even though I overeat in one food it does not mean I overeat my caloric totals for the day. I consider it to be overeating in cheese when it slows my bms for day. LOL
Pizza? If I eat 4 pieces I am quite full and I stop. Angel food cake? I can eat the whole thing and look for more. We react differently to different foods. Sugar isn't a problem for you. Great. It's egocentric to assume one's experience is true for everyone.
All of that being said doesn't make sugar evil or a problem. All it means that you have a weakness for it. I can overeat on meat... easily. I don't tend to go for sugary stuff, but I got fat on a lot of proteins, fats, and other carbs including fruits and vegetables.
To label a nutrient/food as evil isn't helping either. If you individually have issues that is something you have to deal with, but it isn't the fault of sugar, fat, protein, white foods, meat, carbs, etc.
My biggest problem is that I just didn't monitor what I ate. Now I count my calories and am cognizant of how many calories I am consuming. I eat anything I want, just less. You are right that it is egocentric to assume one's experience is true for everyone, that is why the sugar conspiracy myth is so wrong.
At best, I see sugar as neutral in terms of health. At worst, I see it as contributing to health problems. Same thing goes for weight management. I doubt there are many out there who can lose weight with relative ease while eating a high sugar diet. It can be be neutral for some who are at a good weight, but it can also be a problem for some.
I don't see sugar as evil. I have never labelled it as evil. Food cannot be evil, but it can contribute to problems. For me, someone with minor IR, reactive hypoglycemia, and autoimmune issues that benefit from avoid inflammatory sugars, sugar is a problem. It's only benefit for me is good taste... perhaps as an appetite stimulant if I needed my appetite increased.
You don't have problems with sugar (leading to overeating of health issues). You're lucky. Some do.
What counts as a "high sugar" diet? I likely qualify, and I'm down by about 110 lb so far.
Per MFP and my trained averaging eyeball I eat around 225g carbs / 100g sugars per day. Some of that is milk (I drink a lot of the stuff) but I also have plenty of foods with a lot of added sugars too.
You must be one of the few who eat high sugar with ease, and by high sugar I would guess that is well above the WHO's recommendations - perhaps double or more. I don't think the majority of (fat) people can lose weight well on a high sugar diet; as you pointed out, some people can though.4 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
Great. We agree. Look at that.
I agree with @nvmomketo's first post "... that's where Lustig exaggerated: Sugar is not a problem for everybody, but it is a problem for many."None of that supports the idea of sugar as uniquely a problem or a "sugar conspiracy," which is what the discussion in this thread is about.
I agree. Likewise, I also think demonizing abstinence because YOU find the practice to be unsustainable is a bad idea. I have never said that anybody has an easier road than I do, but there are those who are unfamiliar with my exact situation (as I am with theirs). We all have our trials and tribulations, weaknesses and strengths, we just have to play the cards we're dealt. However, our ability to offer useful advice is limited by our experience and if you have no experience concerning problems with sugary foods, the value of that advice to me is greatly diminished.I think demonizing individual components of a diet because YOU may find them particularly tempting also is a bad idea and not generalizable (not everyone finds sugar the most tempting ingredient, and that DOESN'T mean those people have it lots easier or are different in kind when it comes to obesity/overweight), which is what my point was. "Lucky" has nothing to do with it, and liking sugar (even a super lot, even plain old sugar without fat) doesn't make you less responsible for the outcome (such that it's BigSugar's fault, anymore than my issue can be blamed on the local Indian place, which would be absurd).
Saying you have a problem with sugar/fat/salt doesn't absolve you of responsibility.8 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
Great. We agree. Look at that.
I agree with @nvmomketo's first post "... that's where Lustig exaggerated: Sugar is not a problem for everybody, but it is a problem for many."None of that supports the idea of sugar as uniquely a problem or a "sugar conspiracy," which is what the discussion in this thread is about.
I agree. Likewise, I also think demonizing abstinence because YOU find the practice to be unsustainable is a bad idea. I have never said that anybody has an easier road than I do, but there are those who are unfamiliar with my exact situation (as I am with theirs). We all have our trials and tribulations, weaknesses and strengths, we just have to play the cards we're dealt. However, our ability to offer useful advice is limited by our experience and if you have no experience concerning problems with sugary foods, the value of that advice to me is greatly diminished.I think demonizing individual components of a diet because YOU may find them particularly tempting also is a bad idea and not generalizable (not everyone finds sugar the most tempting ingredient, and that DOESN'T mean those people have it lots easier or are different in kind when it comes to obesity/overweight), which is what my point was. "Lucky" has nothing to do with it, and liking sugar (even a super lot, even plain old sugar without fat) doesn't make you less responsible for the outcome (such that it's BigSugar's fault, anymore than my issue can be blamed on the local Indian place, which would be absurd).
Saying you have a problem with sugar/fat/salt doesn't absolve you of responsibility.
Thank you for saying what I have been thinking for months. Could not have said it better.
Admitting the problem is taking responsibility.4 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I think sugar does something to some people that affects their weight and health more than it does others. I could be wrong, but for people like me, I highly doubt it.
And I see no evidence of that. What you describe sounds like how habits work, and that it was sugar in your case doesn't change that. If I start grazing during the day (on anything) I have trouble controlling it. So I learned this about myself and typically don't do it (and try to be really mindful if I do).
What frustrates me about this conversation is that it really sounds like you are trying to say that people with weaknesses for sugary things* have a harder time, and are simply less responsible for their choices or getting overweight than people with other sorts of food issues. I don't think you have any basis to claim that.
*And I like plenty of sugary things, they just also have fat and aren't more difficult to resist for me than certain other things that aren't sugary -- I simply do not like the kinds of foods you say were your weakness -- that's a matter of taste. I can easily imagine having this same conversation with someone whose weakness was fast food (with little sugar) which I also don't like but don't buy that it's particularly "addictive" for those who do or harder to deal with than preferences for other sorts of foods, like those I am more tempted to overeat.
What frustrates me about this is that many people don't have a problem with sugar so they believe no one else does - that egocentric viewpoint.
My problem with sugars (and often grains, is that they leave me hungry and wanting more. If I ate to excess of a sugary item, I still wanted more. I was still hungry. Those big family sized bags of jelly beans? I could eat most of that in a day (no I did not do it regularly - mainly because I knew it was dumb to to). When I did eat that many extra calories, I still ate three square meals because I was still hungry. It did not fill me up or satiate me. It seemed to stimulate my appetite so I ate more. If at the same amount of extra calories in cheese, pepperoni sticks, or nuts (my go to snacks now) I think I would be sick if I tried to eat three meals too.
Same goes for soda. I usually had a can up to 800mL of soda per day. It NEVER filled me up. I was often hungrier. Now I drink bulletproof coffee (with 1 tsp coconut oil and 1 tsp butter or some whipping cream, sometimes with a 1/8th-1/4 serving of protein powder) and that drink DOES satiate me. I often don't eat until mid afternoon.
For me, sugar and grains are an anomaly. No other food does that to me. Plus no other food negatively affects my BG, causes hypoglycemic episodes and negatively affects my autoimmune diseases. I know it doesn't do that to everybody - my husband being one - but it does create problems for me.
Just because it doesn't affect someone personally doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. I dislike alcohol and can't imagine an addiction to it but I know it is a problem for some people. Conversely, I have celiac disease but because gluten hurts me I don't assume it hurts everyone. My son is allergic to tree nuts but I love them - same thing. Different foods affect different people differently.
Thinking of food as just a benign energy source is not always the best way to approach food choices. IMO
ETA:lemurcat12 wrote: »No one is arguing against you considering yourself lucky or even that cutting way down on sugar might work well for certain people, so I feel like the latest responses are to something not said. The argument was against the Lustig sugar is THE problem, period, stuff, and ketomom's assertion that overweight people come in two categories, those who just overeat (lucky ones!) and those who couldn't help it 'til they cut out sugar, because the sugar made them do it, and overeating sugar is completely different and much more uncontrollable than overeating other foods (for everyone, as those who don't find sugar special just don't get it or face that level of unbearable temptation).
But that's cool.
You've twisted my words. I never said overweight people come in two categories. I did not imply that overeaters were lucky. I believe I said those who can eat sugar with no problem are lucky. Sugar is tasty and in most foods - I wish that I could eat it. Cutting sugar for those with a sugar problem can make it easier to not overeat. If sugar seems to stimulate your appetite, it makes sense that not eating it would make one less hungry and it easier to lose weight. The first few days and weeks of low carb were tough for me but now it is easy to control my calories.
I can now have trays of desserts and candy in front of me and not eat it, but if I do eat a small sugary item? That's were huge amounts of will power are suddenly required, not to mention some exercise to control my BG and a snack within an hour to control my expected hypoglycemia.
I'm not saying the "sugar made me do it". That's a bit glib and a scapegoat. I am saying that eating sugars can create problems and if you don't identify the source of the problem, controlling it will be harder than it needs to be... For only only those people who have issues with sugar. NOT everyone.
10 -
masterwilde wrote: »So firstly here is the link for you to read yourselves:-
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/07/the-sugar-conspiracy-robert-lustig-john-yudkin
Its definitely interesting reading, let me have your thoughts please
Did anyone have thoughts on the original article?“If only a small fraction of what we know about the effects of sugar were to be revealed in relation to any other material used as a food additive,” wrote Yudkin, “that material would promptly be banned.”1 -
diannethegeek wrote: »masterwilde wrote: »So firstly here is the link for you to read yourselves:-
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/07/the-sugar-conspiracy-robert-lustig-john-yudkin
Its definitely interesting reading, let me have your thoughts please
Did anyone have thoughts on the original article?“If only a small fraction of what we know about the effects of sugar were to be revealed in relation to any other material used as a food additive,” wrote Yudkin, “that material would promptly be banned.”Those prewar European researchers would have regarded the idea that obesity results from “excess calories” as laughably simplistic.So when insulin stays high for unnaturally long, a person gains weight, gets hungrier, and feels fatigued. Then we blame them for it. But, as Gary Taubes puts it, obese people are not fat because they are overeating and sedentary – they are overeating and sedentary because they are fat, or getting fatter.0 -
Just wanted to add something on the whole 'who has it harder' topic:
We get fat for lots of reasons (aging, pregnancy, sudden shift to sedentary job, accident that leaves us immobilized for a time, etc). I don't think anyone (or at least it would be quite uncommon) consciously decides that they are just going to start pigging out and gain weight. It's not until we attempt to lose the weight that we find what works and what doesn't. Calorie counting and portion control is the first thing most people try when they want to lose weight. And it does work for a lot of people. So, on the one hand, yes it is "lucky" if the first potential solution you try works. For others calorie counting and portion control (everything in moderation) simply doesn't work so well. How do we know that? Because if it did work that well for us, we wouldn't have had to try something else! And if we are "lucky" we, too, will find what works for us.
I don't second guess people who have tried restricting certain macros and say they find it too difficult/unsustainable. I'm not insulted by that; then again, I don't find it difficult or unsustainable, and am perfectly happy with it, so why would I care if it's not someone else's cup of tea? I guess I don't understand why that statement is perfectly appropriate, but when I say I tried calorie counting and I found it too difficult/unsustainable, that it's taken as some kind of insult to those who do prefer calorie counting. For some people, calorie counting is easier to adhere to. For others, other kinds of restrictions are easier to adhere to. If you are happy with what you are doing, why do you care if someone else finds it too hard for them? You wouldn't be happy with it if it weren't easy (or at least, easy enough).6 -
diannethegeek wrote: »So when insulin stays high for unnaturally long, a person gains weight, gets hungrier, and feels fatigued. Then we blame them for it. But, as Gary Taubes puts it, obese people are not fat because they are overeating and sedentary – they are overeating and sedentary because they are fat, or getting fatter.
That was true for me. My IR appears to have happened before I became fat (I suspect my IR was linked to steroid use). I was eating moderate to high carb and at a fine weight, if not at the high end of the normal BMI. My insulin levels went up, my BG levels went up, and then my weight went up. Conversely, losing weight did not help my IR, and I control it through diet.
My case may not be the norm, but the theory fits my situation well.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I think sugar does something to some people that affects their weight and health more than it does others. I could be wrong, but for people like me, I highly doubt it.
And I see no evidence of that. What you describe sounds like how habits work, and that it was sugar in your case doesn't change that. If I start grazing during the day (on anything) I have trouble controlling it. So I learned this about myself and typically don't do it (and try to be really mindful if I do).
What frustrates me about this conversation is that it really sounds like you are trying to say that people with weaknesses for sugary things* have a harder time, and are simply less responsible for their choices or getting overweight than people with other sorts of food issues. I don't think you have any basis to claim that.
*And I like plenty of sugary things, they just also have fat and aren't more difficult to resist for me than certain other things that aren't sugary -- I simply do not like the kinds of foods you say were your weakness -- that's a matter of taste. I can easily imagine having this same conversation with someone whose weakness was fast food (with little sugar) which I also don't like but don't buy that it's particularly "addictive" for those who do or harder to deal with than preferences for other sorts of foods, like those I am more tempted to overeat.
What frustrates me about this is that many people don't have a problem with sugar so they believe no one else does - that egocentric viewpoint.
The other side of that coin has similar proponents. There are a few people on MFP that believe everyone has a problem with sugar (or rather carbs, but there's never a problem with fruit and veg though) because they do.
4 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I think sugar does something to some people that affects their weight and health more than it does others. I could be wrong, but for people like me, I highly doubt it.
And I see no evidence of that. What you describe sounds like how habits work, and that it was sugar in your case doesn't change that. If I start grazing during the day (on anything) I have trouble controlling it. So I learned this about myself and typically don't do it (and try to be really mindful if I do).
What frustrates me about this conversation is that it really sounds like you are trying to say that people with weaknesses for sugary things* have a harder time, and are simply less responsible for their choices or getting overweight than people with other sorts of food issues. I don't think you have any basis to claim that.
*And I like plenty of sugary things, they just also have fat and aren't more difficult to resist for me than certain other things that aren't sugary -- I simply do not like the kinds of foods you say were your weakness -- that's a matter of taste. I can easily imagine having this same conversation with someone whose weakness was fast food (with little sugar) which I also don't like but don't buy that it's particularly "addictive" for those who do or harder to deal with than preferences for other sorts of foods, like those I am more tempted to overeat.
What frustrates me about this is that many people don't have a problem with sugar so they believe no one else does - that egocentric viewpoint.
The other side of that coin has similar proponents. There are a few people on MFP that believe everyone has a problem with sugar (or rather carbs, but there's never a problem with fruit and veg though) because they do.
True.1 -
double post again. Oops0
-
rankinsect wrote: »makingmark wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »The people who seem to be against the idea that sugar can be a problem for people seem to be those for whom sugar has never been a problem. It didn't happen to me so I don't believe it, and that's where Lustig exaggerated: Sugar is not a problem for everybody, but it is a problem for many. Just because the nutrition powers of yesteryear had fat labelled as the nutritional problem child in the 80s, it does not mean that sugar has been mislabelled as a problem nutrient ( or as the scapegoat) today. It IS a problem for some.
Looking within myself did not help me lose weight. The minute I dropped sugar and reduced my carbs I lost weight. Easily and lots of it. You bet I was eating too many calories but I was eating too much because of sugar (and partially due to those carbs which are readily converted to sugar). I didn't have to do any soul searching or suddenly develop great will power in order to lose weight; all I had to do was cut sugar out of my diet and I was much less hungry, I lost my cravings, and the slight thermogenic poperties of a very LCHF diet helped a bit too.
I also love cheese and nuts and overeat those pretty regularly but that's not what made me fat either. Candy, soda, muffins, and unneeded carby plate fillers made me fat. I cut those and replaced them with other macro nutrients (at a slight caloric deficit) and lost weight. Simply cutting calories was not sustainable for more that a week or two for me. Cut sugar too? Suddenly it was easy to lose. It may not be true for all, but it was for me and it is true for many, especially those of us with IR issues (known and undiagnosed). I am not a special snowflake here.
Sure, many people are fine with eating sugar but many aren't. I was fine with sugar until I approached 40, when suddenly I was not. Stating sugar is a problem for all is wrong, and Lustig should stop it. Staing that sugar is NOT a problem for all is just as wrong - claiming it is a scapegoat is incorrect. A better statement might be that sugar is not a problem for some people, although it may become a problem for some of them later, and that it is indeed a problem for some people right now (somewhere between 1/3 to 1/2 it appears to me based on those affected with IR issues like NAFLD, T2D, PCOS, prediabetes, Alzheimer's, as well as some of those who find weight loss difficult without sugar reduction - not a tiny group).
... This thread should probably be moved to the debate section.
"Readily converted to sugar" is another of those phrases that is used to fear monger against it, as if that makes it bad somehow.
You're outright denying in your post that things apart from carbs made you fat. "Oh, I've been overeating this and that and X and Y and Z regularly too but that wasn't the problem, no.". I call BS. If you've been overeating you've been overeating them and they were part of the problem.
I used to eat lots of sugar.
And lots of fat.
And probably protein too.
Like 4+ ham and cheese sandwiches as a single meal? Check.
Wieners with a bunch of fries? Yeah, did that.
Pizza and whatnot? Yup. All lots of it and not a single gram of added sugar. Cutting out sugar would have changed nothing at all, because I like eating. I would have just eaten something else instead.
Yeah no. I can still each 4 oz of cheese in a day and not gain weight. I do it often. Too often, but I can cut other foods from my diet when I do it. I had 4oz of cheese for lunch? Okay, I'll eat less at dinner. No problem. I had a cup of macadamia nuts with coconut for an afternoon "snack". I'll skip dinner. I had a large soda or a bag of jelly bellies? I'm still hungry and I find it harder to regulate my food intake. I can be sure that I'll be hungry for dinner even after a family sized bag of candy.
I tend to overeat cheese more now since I eat lower carb. I don't eat candy or soda any longer. Even though I overeat in one food it does not mean I overeat my caloric totals for the day. I consider it to be overeating in cheese when it slows my bms for day. LOL
Pizza? If I eat 4 pieces I am quite full and I stop. Angel food cake? I can eat the whole thing and look for more. We react differently to different foods. Sugar isn't a problem for you. Great. It's egocentric to assume one's experience is true for everyone.
All of that being said doesn't make sugar evil or a problem. All it means that you have a weakness for it. I can overeat on meat... easily. I don't tend to go for sugary stuff, but I got fat on a lot of proteins, fats, and other carbs including fruits and vegetables.
To label a nutrient/food as evil isn't helping either. If you individually have issues that is something you have to deal with, but it isn't the fault of sugar, fat, protein, white foods, meat, carbs, etc.
My biggest problem is that I just didn't monitor what I ate. Now I count my calories and am cognizant of how many calories I am consuming. I eat anything I want, just less. You are right that it is egocentric to assume one's experience is true for everyone, that is why the sugar conspiracy myth is so wrong.
At best, I see sugar as neutral in terms of health. At worst, I see it as contributing to health problems. Same thing goes for weight management. I doubt there are many out there who can lose weight with relative ease while eating a high sugar diet. It can be be neutral for some who are at a good weight, but it can also be a problem for some.
I don't see sugar as evil. I have never labelled it as evil. Food cannot be evil, but it can contribute to problems. For me, someone with minor IR, reactive hypoglycemia, and autoimmune issues that benefit from avoid inflammatory sugars, sugar is a problem. It's only benefit for me is good taste... perhaps as an appetite stimulant if I needed my appetite increased.
You don't have problems with sugar (leading to overeating of health issues). You're lucky. Some do.
What counts as a "high sugar" diet? I likely qualify, and I'm down by about 110 lb so far.
Per MFP and my trained averaging eyeball I eat around 225g carbs / 100g sugars per day. Some of that is milk (I drink a lot of the stuff) but I also have plenty of foods with a lot of added sugars too.
You must be one of the few who eat high sugar with ease, and by high sugar I would guess that is well above the WHO's recommendations - perhaps double or more. I don't think the majority of (fat) people can lose weight well on a high sugar diet; as you pointed out, some people can though.
The WHO and US Dietary Guidelines recommend no more than 10% of calories in added sugar (with the WHO also recommending that 5% is even better, if possible). Rankinsect didn't say how much of his 100 g was added sugar, but if, say, that's half, it would be 50 g or 200 calories, and an average man is going to have a calorie goal of more than 2000 at maintenance (my maintenance is about 2200, and I'm a 5'3 woman). So not necessarily "high" according to WHO.0 -
Likewise, I also think demonizing abstinence because YOU find the practice to be unsustainable is a bad idea. I have never said that anybody has an easier road than I do, but there are those who are unfamiliar with my exact situation (as I am with theirs). We all have our trials and tribulations, weaknesses and strengths, we just have to play the cards we're dealt. However, our ability to offer useful advice is limited by our experience and if you have no experience concerning problems with sugary foods, the value of that advice to me is greatly diminished.
Saying you have a problem with sugar/fat/salt doesn't absolve you of responsibility.
I have never once demonized abstinence (nor do I believe it is unsustainable), so once again you are arguing with something I've never said. Why? What's the point? Do you think I will forget that I am not against abstinence if someone prefers it and start arguing that everyone should eat cake? (I barely ever eat cake myself -- not worth the calories.)
I don't think that telling someone struggling with cravings or binging or black/white thinking about foods to cut out the troublesome foods permanently (in other words, buying into the "bad foods" thinking) is NECESSARILY the correct approach and from what I've read and heard from some who have struggled with it can be counterproductive. That doesn't mean I think it's always the wrong approach, and I tried it myself. I just ended up preferring a different kind of abstinence, one that cuts out eating between meals (although I've been bad about compliance lately for my own reasons).2 -
tlflag1620 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »No one is arguing against you considering yourself lucky or even that cutting way down on sugar might work well for certain people, so I feel like the latest responses are to something not said. The argument was against the Lustig sugar is THE problem, period, stuff, and ketomom's assertion that overweight people come in two categories, those who just overeat (lucky ones! piggy though they are) and those who couldn't help it 'til they cut out sugar, because the sugar made them do it, and overeating sugar is completely different and much more uncontrollable than overeating other foods (for everyone, as those who don't find sugar special just don't get it or face that level of unbearable temptation).
But that's cool.
I think you're reading way too much into it. We ALL overate. Some people find simply counting calories and keeping macros more "balanced" (which somehow always seems to mean that carbs represent the biggest portion, but whatever) works. Awesome. You're lucky to have found something that works for you. Other people find that too many carbs triggers swings in blood glucose levels that trigger false hunger - you may still be physically "full" but the sudden drastic drop in blood sugar sends a signal to your brain that you need to eat - but if that false hunger is ignored, we literally hit the floor (I used to have to keep a tin of altoids in my car; not because I was worried about my breath, but because I was worried about having a hypo episode behind the wheel - I can go from vaguely hungry to dizzy and shakey to actually fainting in a span of 15 minutes; one of my biggest fears was experiencing this behind the wheel and killing myself or someone else). Cutting the carbs means no more high highs and, more importantly, no more low lows. Awesome. We're lucky to have found something that works for us.
If you like what you are doing and are happy with the results, awesome! Keep doing it! Its not a competition over who had it the hardest. It's about finding what works best for you. We all have to limit something (be it carbs, fat, calories). The trick is to find what is easiest for you to limit.
I agree with all this.
The posts we were responding to, however, did indeed assert that those who overate because of sugar couldn't help it, it was the sugar's fault. The rest of us, well, we have no excuse. We are lucky and simply acted like gluttons.2 -
diannethegeek wrote: »masterwilde wrote: »So firstly here is the link for you to read yourselves:-
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/07/the-sugar-conspiracy-robert-lustig-john-yudkin
Its definitely interesting reading, let me have your thoughts please
Did anyone have thoughts on the original article?“If only a small fraction of what we know about the effects of sugar were to be revealed in relation to any other material used as a food additive,” wrote Yudkin, “that material would promptly be banned.”
I provided a link to a response which I thought was really good much closer in time to when I read the orginal article. It's near the beginning of this thread.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I think sugar does something to some people that affects their weight and health more than it does others. I could be wrong, but for people like me, I highly doubt it.
And I see no evidence of that. What you describe sounds like how habits work, and that it was sugar in your case doesn't change that. If I start grazing during the day (on anything) I have trouble controlling it. So I learned this about myself and typically don't do it (and try to be really mindful if I do).
What frustrates me about this conversation is that it really sounds like you are trying to say that people with weaknesses for sugary things* have a harder time, and are simply less responsible for their choices or getting overweight than people with other sorts of food issues. I don't think you have any basis to claim that.
*And I like plenty of sugary things, they just also have fat and aren't more difficult to resist for me than certain other things that aren't sugary -- I simply do not like the kinds of foods you say were your weakness -- that's a matter of taste. I can easily imagine having this same conversation with someone whose weakness was fast food (with little sugar) which I also don't like but don't buy that it's particularly "addictive" for those who do or harder to deal with than preferences for other sorts of foods, like those I am more tempted to overeat.
What frustrates me about this is that many people don't have a problem with sugar so they believe no one else does - that egocentric viewpoint.
I overeat everything (well, if I like it -- I don't like straight sugar or soda or candy, but I do like sugar + fat, just not more than savory items of various sorts and less if they are too sweet, usually). You want to make that into something beyond a taste difference. Instead, because I don't care for jujubes, this means that you are an "addict" and I can't understand the struggles you face. My overeating is of a different kind. That strikes me as pretty strange.My problem with sugars (and often grains, is that they leave me hungry and wanting more. If I ate to excess of a sugary item, I still wanted more. I was still hungry.
Sure. There are plenty of foods that I can overeat on and have it not affect my hunger (I have messed up hunger signals anyway). What I don't understand is that IF you are eating because hungry, as you seem to be saying, and you know that candy isn't going to fill you up (it would leave me feeling crappy, one reason I stopped eating candy years ago), why wouldn't you switch to something more filling? Eating candy seems much more about hedonic eating (which I understand quite well -- I just picked different foods) and not true hunger. It's just logical that if one is hungry you'd pick something filling -- even when I was fat if I was really hungry I'd want something with protein and would be delighted to have fruit or veg. I might crave fast and high cal food when hungry and tired (order in the Indian food), but I'd be satisfied if I ate a banana first and able to prepare a more sensible dinner (I just typically didn't bother).Those big family sized bags of jelly beans? I could eat most of that in a day (no I did not do it regularly - mainly because I knew it was dumb to to). When I did eat that many extra calories, I still ate three square meals because I was still hungry. It did not fill me up or satiate me. It seemed to stimulate my appetite so I ate more. If at the same amount of extra calories in cheese, pepperoni sticks, or nuts (my go to snacks now) I think I would be sick if I tried to eat three meals too.
I can eat junk food (or whatever) between meals and still want my 3 squares also. That's why I don't snack anymore. For me hunger is habitual -- I want to eat when I'm used to eating.Same goes for soda. I usually had a can up to 800mL of soda per day. It NEVER filled me up. I was often hungrier.
I suspect soda doesn't fill up most people. I don't think that's about sugar sensitivity. I expect it wouldn't fill me up either, it's just once you stop drinking it you typically lose the taste for it. I switched to diet as a teen (before I drank much of it) and am glad I did. (I can take or leave diet, too -- my beloved beverage is coffee. I don't drink calories since I've yet to find a drink that I find satiating.)4 -
tlflag1620 wrote: »when I say I tried calorie counting and I found it too difficult/unsustainable, that it's taken as some kind of insult to those who do prefer calorie counting.
Um, I don't think it is. Certainly not by me. I just think people want to make the point that you ARE reducing calories to lose like everyone else. Some people claim low carb is magic and means you can lose without reducing calories at all (just like some say the same thing about raw veganism).0 -
https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/why-cant-i-lose-weight-htlw-12/
excerpt:
"Cutting sugar works well for those people whose problem is excessive sugar intake. They write books and websites about how sugar is the devil. Others think that is ridiculous and think that refined grains (wheat) is the real devil since they’ve done well reducing grains. Others think that stress relief is the major problem in weight loss. Others blame calories. They all ridicule each other and fill the internet with testimonials. Worse, they all start bickering about how the real problem is carbs, or sugar, or wheat, or calories, or stress, or sleep deprivation, or fibre, or animal proteins etc."0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Likewise, I also think demonizing abstinence because YOU find the practice to be unsustainable is a bad idea. I have never said that anybody has an easier road than I do, but there are those who are unfamiliar with my exact situation (as I am with theirs). We all have our trials and tribulations, weaknesses and strengths, we just have to play the cards we're dealt. However, our ability to offer useful advice is limited by our experience and if you have no experience concerning problems with sugary foods, the value of that advice to me is greatly diminished.
Saying you have a problem with sugar/fat/salt doesn't absolve you of responsibility.
I have never once demonized abstinence (nor do I believe it is unsustainable), so once again you are arguing with something I've never said. Why? What's the point? Do you think I will forget that I am not against abstinence if someone prefers it and start arguing that everyone should eat cake? (I barely ever eat cake myself -- not worth the calories.)
lol. Take it easy, lady. I have never once demonized individual components of diet. So why are you arguing with something I never said? The answer (I'm hoping) is that you weren't talking about me specifically (if you were, you must have me confused with someone else). Likewise, I was not talking about you specifically. I still don't get why you would think that.I don't think that telling someone struggling with cravings or binging or black/white thinking about foods to cut out the troublesome foods permanently (in other words, buying into the "bad foods" thinking) is NECESSARILY the correct approach and from what I've read and heard from some who have struggled with it can be counterproductive. That doesn't mean I think it's always the wrong approach, and I tried it myself. I just ended up preferring a different kind of abstinence, one that cuts out eating between meals (although I've been bad about compliance lately for my own reasons).
Your advice in this area is noted, but its value is somewhat diminished by the absence of personal experience. Those with no experience of the problem don't have the same necessity for objectivity as those with the problem. If you have the problem, all that matters is the bottom line: "Does it work?".
4 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I overeat everything (well, if I like it -- I don't like straight sugar or soda or candy, but I do like sugar + fat, just not more than savory items of various sorts and less if they are too sweet, usually). You want to make that into something beyond a taste difference. Instead, because I don't care for jujubes, this means that you are an "addict" and I can't understand the struggles you face. My overeating is of a different kind. That strikes me as pretty strange.
And that's where the disconnect lies, I think. I can't speak for nvmomketo but I can say that there absolutely is a difference between overindulging in a food because it's delicious and convenient and the compulsion to eat and keep eating some experience from carbs/sugar.
I believe the first responds best to good eating habits and the second to abstinence. Whether it's an addiction, some sort of insulin or other hormone problem I don't know. But I do know it's a real phenomenon that has nothing to do with bad habits, emotional eating or a relationship with food.3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 914 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions