Afraid of natural sugars
Replies
-
Ugh.
Always so much hate for the carbs.
Listen, I'm a Type II diabetic. I unfortunately had Gestational Diabetes with all of my pregnancies and ended up progressing to Type II after my last son was born. I LOVE carbs. Yum. Sadly I DO have to watch my carb intake, but I still have all of the things that I love, just less of them. And yes, I've swapped higher sugar fruits (like grapes) for lower sugar fruits (like berries) regularly because I can have more and feel more satisfied. I go over my carb and sugar goals from time to time and you know what, as long as my blood sugar readings are where they need to be I don't let that bother me.
This has to be a life-changing way of eating for us. I'm not giving up Japanese food or tacos. I will eat them in moderation and listen to my glucose meter. That might mean just one taco, or half the portion of rice I am given, and that's ok (then I get to take the rest home and have it twice--nom nom).
I guess my thing is that carbs aren't the enemy. Even for diabetics. Food is neither good nor bad, it is more about the quantities in which we consume them and staying within our own macro and calorie goals.
So enjoy that banana and your glass of milk! I personally do not like milk as a stand-alone beverage (never have!) but I will go for a banana every so often. I find them quite filling and they give me lots of energy. They are great pre/post workout snacks!3 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »But wait a minute, all the "experts" on MFP will tell you over and over again - sugar is sugar, doesn't matter where it comes from. Obviously, they know more than WHO. And also the USDA, which has just mandated the "added sugar" category on nutrition labels.
If you read the actual WHO report, the reasons they are recommending reduction in free sugars is:
1. To reduce tooth decay,
2. To reduce the overall calories consumed and thus reduce body weight.
If you are controlling your calories directly, #2 is of no benefit to you since you're eating the same amount anyway. As to #1, sugar reduction can give a benefit, but dental cavities are much more easily prevented by better oral hygiene. Brushing your teeth and flossing before plaque has a chance to form is the best way to prevent cavities.
We now know that the "sugar isn't unhealthy beyond tooth decay and it's empty calories only" was heavily influenced *cough* bought by the sugar industry.
No, no we don't.
Yes, yes we do. Google this: Sugar Industry Harvard, to learn what the sugar industry did years ago to protect their bottom line. This was all over the newspapers last month.
Yeah, maybe instead of reading a newspaper look at the actual study...
Why should I look at the actual study that said sugar is not unhealthy, if the study was paid for the sugar industry? The tobacco industry did the same thing. Do you read studies that said cigarettes don't cause cancer that were paid for by Philip Morris?
I guess Atkins, Dr. Lustig, Gary Taubes have never done the same thing.
Was Atkins and are Lustig and Taubes bought off by the meat, poultry and dairy industries? Provide proof and I will agree with you.
I find it hard to believe you don't actually believe Atkins, Lustig and Taubes aren't selling anything.
Seriously?
Here is a nice summary with the problems with sugar. And by the way, Atkins was, and Lustig and Taubes are correct.
And don't forget Dr. David Ludwig, Professor of Pediatrics at Harvard Medical School. But I suppose he's just a fraud out to make a buck.
https://www.liverdoctor.com/its-sugar-not-fat-that-will-give-you-heart-disease/
The insulin hypothesis has already been debunked.
And David Lustig does sell a book to make money.
So in other words, some time ago David Lustig said to himself, "I'm not making enough money as a Harvard professor. I need to make up something that will sell books and make me some extra bucks. I know, I'll make up some baloney that sugar is bad for you." Really?
Why is it that if someone disagrees with someone who writes a book, automatically the writer is a scam artist just trying to make money?0 -
You should read some of David Ludwig's study designs. Very strange.1
-
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »But wait a minute, all the "experts" on MFP will tell you over and over again - sugar is sugar, doesn't matter where it comes from. Obviously, they know more than WHO. And also the USDA, which has just mandated the "added sugar" category on nutrition labels.
If you read the actual WHO report, the reasons they are recommending reduction in free sugars is:
1. To reduce tooth decay,
2. To reduce the overall calories consumed and thus reduce body weight.
If you are controlling your calories directly, #2 is of no benefit to you since you're eating the same amount anyway. As to #1, sugar reduction can give a benefit, but dental cavities are much more easily prevented by better oral hygiene. Brushing your teeth and flossing before plaque has a chance to form is the best way to prevent cavities.
We now know that the "sugar isn't unhealthy beyond tooth decay and it's empty calories only" was heavily influenced *cough* bought by the sugar industry.
No, no we don't.
Yes, yes we do. Google this: Sugar Industry Harvard, to learn what the sugar industry did years ago to protect their bottom line. This was all over the newspapers last month.
Yeah, maybe instead of reading a newspaper look at the actual study...
Why should I look at the actual study that said sugar is not unhealthy, if the study was paid for the sugar industry? The tobacco industry did the same thing. Do you read studies that said cigarettes don't cause cancer that were paid for by Philip Morris?
I guess Atkins, Dr. Lustig, Gary Taubes have never done the same thing.
Was Atkins and are Lustig and Taubes bought off by the meat, poultry and dairy industries? Provide proof and I will agree with you.
I find it hard to believe you don't actually believe Atkins, Lustig and Taubes aren't selling anything.
Seriously?
Here is a nice summary with the problems with sugar. And by the way, Atkins was, and Lustig and Taubes are correct.
And don't forget Dr. David Ludwig, Professor of Pediatrics at Harvard Medical School. But I suppose he's just a fraud out to make a buck.
https://www.liverdoctor.com/its-sugar-not-fat-that-will-give-you-heart-disease/
The insulin hypothesis has already been debunked.
And David Lustig does sell a book to make money.
So in other words, some time ago David Lustig said to himself, "I'm not making enough money as a Harvard professor. I need to make up something that will sell books and make me some extra bucks. I know, I'll make up some baloney that sugar is bad for you." Really?
Why is it that if someone disagrees with someone who writes a book, automatically the writer is a scam artist just trying to make money?
If you want to actually look at what metabolic wards studies present, you can look at: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10436946/are-all-calories-equal-part-2-kevins-halls-new-study#latest1 -
I don't think Lustig is a scam artist, and I similarly don't think Esselstyn and Campbell are. I think that people (including scientists) are human, and when you get invested in a theory sometimes it makes you biased somewhat, because you end up with so much ego riding on the success of that theory or you just believe you are right and it matters so much. (I am much more negative and skeptical about Taubes, who has said some remarkably silly things.)
Denise Minger's discussion of the history of low fat and the successes achieved cast light on why the supporters tend to be so excited about it: https://rawfoodsos.com/2015/10/06/in-defense-of-low-fat-a-call-for-some-evolution-of-thought-part-1/ -- the results are promising. I think the same thing happened with some of those experimenting with low carb or low sugar diets. (I also think the correlation studies show that for whatever reason -- and I think other nutritional failings or lifestyle issues may well be part of it -- both high sat fat and high sugar are problems, whereas high fruit and veg tends to have positive correlations with health, despite the sugar in them.) Lustig tried to focus on sugar as a cause in and of itself (vs. calories) with that study where he switched kids to starches, but that was not successful IMO because he was unable to control for calories. I do think this is evidence that higher added sugar in an uncontrolled diet (and most are long-term) tends to result in more calories.3 -
Lustig's name is Robert and I think he's at UCSF.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »Lustig's name is Robert and I think he's at UCSF.
Now that you mention he, I think he meant David Ludwig.. not Lustig.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Lustig's name is Robert and I think he's at UCSF.
Now that you mention he, I think he meant David Ludwig.. not Lustig.
That's actually what he said. I feel dirty now.0 -
He cited LiverDoctor -- who is that?
Walter Willett is someone at Harvard who is hardly in the pocket of BigSugar, but will--like the scientific consensus still--argue for a connection of sat fat and heart disease. Obviously excessive sugar is bad too, whether because of obesity being a common result or because of a correlation with a poorer overall diet or a hypothetical effect beyond that (which wouldn't surprise me at all, but I don't see that as being well-supported yet).
Of course, if you eat a sensible, balanced, healthful diet, it's not an issue anyway, so why are we even on this tangent again? No one is saying eat unlimited added sugar or replace nutrient dense foods with Twinkies, since sugar is sugar (although it is -- even when people debate the effects of glucose vs. fructose, both of which have their good and bad side -- they aren't debating cookies vs. fruit, since both have both).
Cookies often have sat fat too, though. And any tasty cookie certainly won't be fat free!1 -
Skyblueyellow wrote: »Ugh.
Always so much hate for the carbs.
Listen, I'm a Type II diabetic. I unfortunately had Gestational Diabetes with all of my pregnancies and ended up progressing to Type II after my last son was born. I LOVE carbs. Yum. Sadly I DO have to watch my carb intake, but I still have all of the things that I love, just less of them. And yes, I've swapped higher sugar fruits (like grapes) for lower sugar fruits (like berries) regularly because I can have more and feel more satisfied. I go over my carb and sugar goals from time to time and you know what, as long as my blood sugar readings are where they need to be I don't let that bother me.
I guess my thing is that carbs aren't the enemy. Even for diabetics. Food is neither good nor bad, it is more about the quantities in which we consume them and staying within our own macro and calorie goals.
So enjoy that banana and your glass of milk! I personally do not like milk as a stand-alone beverage (never have!) but I will go for a banana every so often. I find them quite filling and they give me lots of energy. They are great pre/post workout snacks!
Unless you are taking pills and/or insulin, how can your blood sugars be where they need to be? If that's the case, do you want to take pills and insulin for the rest of your life?
1 -
So how do you propose we all keep our blood sugar and appropriate levels throughout the day without...you know...sugar?0
-
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »Skyblueyellow wrote: »Ugh.
Always so much hate for the carbs.
Listen, I'm a Type II diabetic. I unfortunately had Gestational Diabetes with all of my pregnancies and ended up progressing to Type II after my last son was born. I LOVE carbs. Yum. Sadly I DO have to watch my carb intake, but I still have all of the things that I love, just less of them. And yes, I've swapped higher sugar fruits (like grapes) for lower sugar fruits (like berries) regularly because I can have more and feel more satisfied. I go over my carb and sugar goals from time to time and you know what, as long as my blood sugar readings are where they need to be I don't let that bother me.
I guess my thing is that carbs aren't the enemy. Even for diabetics. Food is neither good nor bad, it is more about the quantities in which we consume them and staying within our own macro and calorie goals.
So enjoy that banana and your glass of milk! I personally do not like milk as a stand-alone beverage (never have!) but I will go for a banana every so often. I find them quite filling and they give me lots of energy. They are great pre/post workout snacks!
Unless you are taking pills and/or insulin, how can your blood sugars be where they need to be? If that's the case, do you want to take pills and insulin for the rest of your life?
I'd say it beats having their glucose levels be out of control...0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »Skyblueyellow wrote: »Ugh.
Always so much hate for the carbs.
Listen, I'm a Type II diabetic. I unfortunately had Gestational Diabetes with all of my pregnancies and ended up progressing to Type II after my last son was born. I LOVE carbs. Yum. Sadly I DO have to watch my carb intake, but I still have all of the things that I love, just less of them. And yes, I've swapped higher sugar fruits (like grapes) for lower sugar fruits (like berries) regularly because I can have more and feel more satisfied. I go over my carb and sugar goals from time to time and you know what, as long as my blood sugar readings are where they need to be I don't let that bother me.
I guess my thing is that carbs aren't the enemy. Even for diabetics. Food is neither good nor bad, it is more about the quantities in which we consume them and staying within our own macro and calorie goals.
So enjoy that banana and your glass of milk! I personally do not like milk as a stand-alone beverage (never have!) but I will go for a banana every so often. I find them quite filling and they give me lots of energy. They are great pre/post workout snacks!
Unless you are taking pills and/or insulin, how can your blood sugars be where they need to be? If that's the case, do you want to take pills and insulin for the rest of your life?
I'd say it beats having their glucose levels be out of control...
Well you could refrain from eating sugars and grains for whatever time period is necessary, reduce your insulin and medication, and live drug and insulin free.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I don't think Lustig is a scam artist, and I similarly don't think Esselstyn and Campbell are. I think that people (including scientists) are human, and when you get invested in a theory sometimes it makes you biased somewhat, because you end up with so much ego riding on the success of that theory or you just believe you are right and it matters so much. (I am much more negative and skeptical about Taubes, who has said some remarkably silly things.)
Denise Minger's discussion of the history of low fat and the successes achieved cast light on why the supporters tend to be so excited about it: https://rawfoodsos.com/2015/10/06/in-defense-of-low-fat-a-call-for-some-evolution-of-thought-part-1/ -- the results are promising. I think the same thing happened with some of those experimenting with low carb or low sugar diets. (I also think the correlation studies show that for whatever reason -- and I think other nutritional failings or lifestyle issues may well be part of it -- both high sat fat and high sugar are problems, whereas high fruit and veg tends to have positive correlations with health, despite the sugar in them.) Lustig tried to focus on sugar as a cause in and of itself (vs. calories) with that study where he switched kids to starches, but that was not successful IMO because he was unable to control for calories. I do think this is evidence that higher added sugar in an uncontrolled diet (and most are long-term) tends to result in more calories.
Lustig also said some far-out stuff with no basis in reality.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7QXFJNKWXs 2 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »Skyblueyellow wrote: »Ugh.
Always so much hate for the carbs.
Listen, I'm a Type II diabetic. I unfortunately had Gestational Diabetes with all of my pregnancies and ended up progressing to Type II after my last son was born. I LOVE carbs. Yum. Sadly I DO have to watch my carb intake, but I still have all of the things that I love, just less of them. And yes, I've swapped higher sugar fruits (like grapes) for lower sugar fruits (like berries) regularly because I can have more and feel more satisfied. I go over my carb and sugar goals from time to time and you know what, as long as my blood sugar readings are where they need to be I don't let that bother me.
I guess my thing is that carbs aren't the enemy. Even for diabetics. Food is neither good nor bad, it is more about the quantities in which we consume them and staying within our own macro and calorie goals.
So enjoy that banana and your glass of milk! I personally do not like milk as a stand-alone beverage (never have!) but I will go for a banana every so often. I find them quite filling and they give me lots of energy. They are great pre/post workout snacks!
Unless you are taking pills and/or insulin, how can your blood sugars be where they need to be? If that's the case, do you want to take pills and insulin for the rest of your life?
Lots of people control their T2 with diet, not pills/insulin. And that doesn't require low carbing, although some do that successfully, of course.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 415 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions