Sugar
Options
Replies
-
cwolfman13 wrote: »When I started this stuff over four years ago, I put more emphasis on what I could add to my diet to make it better than what I needed to take away...when I focused on adding positives to my diet, the negatives just naturally fell by the way side.
No qualms at all from me in regards to cutting back on free sugars...most people could stand to do so...but I do think people tend to overemphasize eliminations vs what they can add to their diets to make them better. IMO, focusing on the positives you can add makes the experience much more enjoyable...
I guess it's kind of like focusing on the positive rather than the negative.
I absolutely love this post because it reinforces my belief that the glass is always half full rather than half empty.
When I started logging, it became fairly apparent pretty quickly as to what and where my diet was lacking...I barely ate any vegetables (like probably not even a full serving per day) so I made it a priority and a goal to eat a minimum of four 3oz servings of some kind of vegetable daily...at that time, I couldn't even remember the last time I had some fruit, so I made it a priority to have a couple servings per day...I noticed that most of my protein was coming from fattier cuts of red meat and pork...I made it a point to eat more fish and poultry and eat leaner cuts of red meat and pork. I noticed that my choices of carbohydrates where lackluster nutritionally speaking...so I made it a point to eat things like whole oats and lentils and beans and whole food starches like potatoes and sweet potatoes, etc, etc...
My focus was really on improving upon my nutritional profile...when I did that, I found that other stuff just didn't fit in there on a regular basis and so a lot of the more negative aspects of my diet just naturally fell off over the weeks and months and frankly, years I've been doing this.
The only thing I ever really put any emphasis on for cutting out was my soda habit...largely because it was a 3-6 soda per day habit...usually on the higher side and then I'd come home and drink a couple whiskeys and cokes or something...other than that, my focus was really on how do I make my nutritional profile as a whole better within the bigger picture that is the rest of my life. I really took the point of view that this was a process that would unfold throughout the rest of my life...I didn't have to fix everything yesterday...it's a long, crazy road to hoe.
All that said, I must be off now...taking the kiddos for pizza and a play date with their friends...but don't worry, I had some polenta with sauteed mushrooms and a nice omelette for breakfast and a southwestern stuffed sweet potato for lunch...7 -
OP, hope you get to the bottom of what your issues are.
I lived without sugar for a very, very long time.
Now that I have it back in my life, I can't say I feel any different. In fact, I feel better now due to having reached a healthy weight and being in the habit of regular exercise.
One thing that concerned me reading this thread was hearing about your past struggles with that all or nothing type of mentality.
I'd urge you to use your time during your challenge to dig a little deeper into why you feel like you need to throw in the towel if you "slip up".
Setting moral values on a food and expectations on yourself and then caving in when you fail is self-sabotaging behavior that can hinder your progress towards your goals. While it's easy to say that sugar or potato chips (or whatever one's kryptonite is) themselves are the thing that is so alluring that we just can't help ourselves, ultimately, we're responsible for making the choice to go that extra step that throws in the towel and goes all out past a small indulgence into over indulgence.
I won't try to advise you not to do what you plan to do. I just urge you to think deeper about why you're doing it.
Best of luck.2 -
not_my_first_rodeo wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm very interested in discussing why people choose to do these short term challenges and what they get out of them (I talked about it in the other thread, although OP seemed more interested in provoking a debate about sugar). I'm also interested in talking about barriers to eating a healthful diet if people find that challenging. But the idea that if you don't eat added sugar you necessarily eat more veg or a better overall diet (or, most weirdly, enjoy veg more) is false.
I found a 10 day no-added sugar/no processed foods doable. That's only like a week and a half, I told myself. Longer would be harder. Now, of course, I'm looking at a lifetime of journaling food intake, but somehow that seems more feasible than it did when I started this journey six months ago.
I had certain ground rules when I started. Pertinent to this discussion: I refused to look at any kind of diet or plan that had me eliminating food groups.
It was just a way to force myself to really look at what I had been eating, to read labels, to get back in the habit of writing out meal plans ahead of time, and to get back into the habit of cooking. Like I said up thread I do eat processed food on occasion. I do consume added sugar. It's just much more in moderation than it was before.
For me it's worked.
Yeah, that makes sense to me.
Not sure if you know the background, but I also like short-term challenges or as I call them, experiments. As I mentioned in the prior thread, I did a 30 day no added sugar (also no grains, no snacks) thing because I was curious if I would feel different (I mostly did not, but there's more detail in the other thread should it ever reappear -- I'm kind of annoyed it got nuked as I bothered writing out some stuff I thought was interesting there, even though it was pretty much ignored) ;-). I also had been struggling with mindless and emotional eating and it was a good way of getting a check on that, for me. I found it surprisingly easy, but I'm not much of a sugar fiend, I suppose, and it did force me to be really mindful.
I have also done plant-based experiments, mostly to see how hard it was and to force myself to figure out how to get a good balanced diet with enough protein without relying on meat and dairy, especially. In the back of my mind then was that if I felt way better, as some do, maybe I'd make it more permanent, but it didn't. It did help me reduce overall meat and animal products, going forward, and resulted in me adding some meals to my diet.
I'd try other experiments too.
(I was already in the habit of cooking and reading labels. What I find annoying about some of the discussion around this is that lots of time the person doing them assumes that most people share whatever her bad habits were, like most need to get back to cooking or read labels, when they might already be doing that. I think that I did it already is why both of the challenges mentioned above were not that difficult -- although the plant-based one was much harder. I had previously done a similar one for Lent and it wasn't so hard then, since it had more of a spiritual element. I do think that I have found Lenten practices valuable is one reason I enjoy challenges if I have a good reason for them.)0 -
Wannabmarathoner wrote: »Wannabmarathoner wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Wannabmarathoner wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »When I started this stuff over four years ago, I put more emphasis on what I could add to my diet to make it better than what I needed to take away...when I focused on adding positives to my diet, the negatives just naturally fell by the way side.
No qualms at all from me in regards to cutting back on free sugars...most people could stand to do so...but I do think people tend to overemphasize eliminations vs what they can add to their diets to make them better. IMO, focusing on the positives you can add makes the experience much more enjoyable...
I guess it's kind of like focusing on the positive rather than the negative.
I like that! That's a great thought process to adopt. I tend to be the type of person who would slip up and have a bite or more of deliciousness in the breakroom at work, then decide I already screwed up for the day, so don't even try to eat healthy. I know, it's a sad state of mind. My 3rd day into this, I've consumed more vegetables and less sugar than I've had in months! This is definitely a positive!
Many people have that all or nothing mindset and when they strive for perfection and inevitably slip up, they tend to think "to heck with it I might as well eat whatever I want" or "this is just too hard, I have to give up".
This is one of the reasons I and many others here try to make sure people know you don't have to give everything up, that it is possible to eat sweets (any food really) in moderation and lose weight/be healthy. It's why I and others react so strongly when people make things like "sugar is poison" or "processed foods are bad for you" because it creates this mindset in many that feel like they have to give everything they love up, and for most people, that's just not the case.
You keep saying you are doing this to see if it helps with some symptoms and that's fine. But there are a lot of others who are new here lurking these forums who read these bold statements that sugar is bad, or you need to adhere to a list of good/bad foods in order to "detox" your body, and that's just not true.
I totally agree with you, but please realize two important points: 1. I am not telling anyone else to do this with me, and 2. I will not be doing this forever! The sugar is poison comment is something I've read and heard from several sources and the amounts I was consuming could very well have negative impact on my health. As soon as I'm finished with my 21 days, will I indulge in a delicious bagel and a pumpkin spice latte? YES! Will I share a decadent dessert with a gentleman at the end of a fabulous dinner? YES! Will I consider it poison, no, but the amount of disgusting refined grocery store bought food I was consuming was probably at poisonous levels. I'm tired of defending myself while I make positive changes. I'm sure someone will find something in here to argue about now.
I assure you, none of us are arguing with you, some of us are simply pointing out blanket comments not based in fact . There is nothing wrong with doing an elimination diet to find out what your issue is, but making the kinds of statement I put in bold is not based on any true fact that refined grocery store bought food is disgusting and has any possibility of being at poisonous levels. That is the spreading of misinformation.
Of course you should, under the supervision of your doctor and a good registered dietician, work on finding out what is making you feel badly. However, I am also pointing out the fact that refined foods with sugar in them have a whole lot of other ingredients as well, so it might not be the actual sugar but other ingredients in them that are causing problems. For example, while doing an elimination diet at two different times, I found it was was never the actual sugar causing problems but lactose, and then soy.
People with diabetes and insulin resistance often do not tolerate high levels of carbs/sugar very well, but they can still eat moderate amounts. Please consider that there could be another medical issue going on that needs attention as well.
As an RN, I know. You've driven your point home. Can you move on?
Well, I'm glad that you see my point regarding the picture picture because I wasn't sure, hence my further comments.
No thank you, I choose not to move on because I'm enjoying reading what everyone has to say, as well as participating in the discussion.
Fair enough. I do appreciate your insight, but I wish I could make my point. I'm getting more stressed trying to validate myself here.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »not_my_first_rodeo wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm very interested in discussing why people choose to do these short term challenges and what they get out of them (I talked about it in the other thread, although OP seemed more interested in provoking a debate about sugar). I'm also interested in talking about barriers to eating a healthful diet if people find that challenging. But the idea that if you don't eat added sugar you necessarily eat more veg or a better overall diet (or, most weirdly, enjoy veg more) is false.
I found a 10 day no-added sugar/no processed foods doable. That's only like a week and a half, I told myself. Longer would be harder. Now, of course, I'm looking at a lifetime of journaling food intake, but somehow that seems more feasible than it did when I started this journey six months ago.
I had certain ground rules when I started. Pertinent to this discussion: I refused to look at any kind of diet or plan that had me eliminating food groups.
It was just a way to force myself to really look at what I had been eating, to read labels, to get back in the habit of writing out meal plans ahead of time, and to get back into the habit of cooking. Like I said up thread I do eat processed food on occasion. I do consume added sugar. It's just much more in moderation than it was before.
For me it's worked.
Yeah, that makes sense to me.
Not sure if you know the background, but I also like short-term challenges or as I call them, experiments. As I mentioned in the prior thread, I did a 30 day no added sugar (also no grains, no snacks) thing because I was curious if I would feel different (I mostly did not, but there's more detail in the other thread should it ever reappear -- I'm kind of annoyed it got nuked as I bothered writing out some stuff I thought was interesting there, even though it was pretty much ignored) ;-). I also had been struggling with mindless and emotional eating and it was a good way of getting a check on that, for me. I found it surprisingly easy, but I'm not much of a sugar fiend, I suppose, and it did force me to be really mindful.
I have also done plant-based experiments, mostly to see how hard it was and to force myself to figure out how to get a good balanced diet with enough protein without relying on meat and dairy, especially. In the back of my mind then was that if I felt way better, as some do, maybe I'd make it more permanent, but it didn't. It did help me reduce overall meat and animal products, going forward, and resulted in me adding some meals to my diet.
I'd try other experiments too.
(I was already in the habit of cooking and reading labels. What I find annoying about some of the discussion around this is that lots of time the person doing them assumes that most people share whatever her bad habits were, like most need to get back to cooking or read labels, when they might already be doing that. I think that I did it already is why both of the challenges mentioned above were not that difficult -- although the plant-based one was much harder. I had previously done a similar one for Lent and it wasn't so hard then, since it had more of a spiritual element. I do think that I have found Lenten practices valuable is one reason I enjoy challenges if I have a good reason for them.)
I also have tried to challenge myself for Lent. I can't say I've always been successful, but it does give a different meaning to the challenge. Also, thank you for your insight. I did read your final post in the last thread and thanks for your points. Let's agree to disagree. Neither of us are wrong.1 -
Wannabmarathoner wrote: »... I wish I could make my point. I'm getting more stressed trying to validate myself here.
Have you tried the alternative I sent you the private message about the other day? By now you should be realizing that happens here, EVERY SINGLE TIME someone talks about sugar, carbs or keto.0 -
silverfiend wrote: »Wannabmarathoner wrote: »... I wish I could make my point. I'm getting more stressed trying to validate myself here.
Have you tried the alternative I sent you the private message about the other day? By now you should be realizing that happens here, EVERY SINGLE TIME someone talks about sugar, carbs or keto.
Hmmm I didn't receive a message from you, unless it was by another screen name??0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »When I started this stuff over four years ago, I put more emphasis on what I could add to my diet to make it better than what I needed to take away...when I focused on adding positives to my diet, the negatives just naturally fell by the way side.
No qualms at all from me in regards to cutting back on free sugars...most people could stand to do so...but I do think people tend to overemphasize eliminations vs what they can add to their diets to make them better. IMO, focusing on the positives you can add makes the experience much more enjoyable...
I guess it's kind of like focusing on the positive rather than the negative.
I think more people should think like this--not dwell on what they might be limiting in their diet, but focus instead on all the things they're adding.
Personally, with the history of diabetes and other often controllable diseases like high blood pressure and heart disease, I do watch my added sugars and simple carbs (and sodium). But I'm also lucky to not have much of a sweet tooth. And I never cared much for condiments like salad dressings or ketchup which often have a lot of added sugar.
That being said, I love my potatoes and rice, but in moderation. Since I lost my 100 pounds, I've found so many yummy foods I've forgotten what I cut out. My diet is so much more rich and balanced now.
I've found what works for me and hope that others find a road to health they can stay on for the long trip.2 -
I always find it so interesting when some people on these boards try to say there are no bad foods. There actually are. Refined sugar is actually not good for you. Yes we all like it,but cakes, chocolate etc are bad for you. Well done for cutting down on the processed sugar. I'm sure your body will thank you for it!!2
-
Ooooh. Sugar gets some people on these boards all riled up!! Forget what the naysayers are saying to you. I have mostly cut out sugar (I eat between 10-15g a day) and the sugar I DO eat comes from fruits and. Veggies ...And I have lost weight and I CERTAINLY am not eating at a calorie. deficit. I feel better, I'm not having energy spikes and drops, sleep better, not sore all the time, not foggy headed, Some people like to spew out what they can quickly google to benefit "the lurkers" ...please... you do what works for you, be healthy about it and remember, everyone is different and everyone's BODY will react differently. Interesting side note: I cut out sugar and my fat (mostly all healthy fats) is always over and I've managed to lose 39 lbs. so far. go figure. I was attacked for a sugar post once as well. It sucks to be talked down to when you are looking for inspiration, motivation, whatever. Good luck to you 2
-
I haven't cut out sugar but when I eat high carb/sugar I get all puffed up and I get a bit of a painful physical reaction. Still, I don't have to cut it out completely to feel fine. As long as my diet is balanced and I stick to the .8-1g per pound of body weight in protein, .35 in fat, and fill in the rest with carbs...all good.
And I do NOT differentiate between added sugar and natural sugar. I have had the same side effects from eating too much fruit.1 -
Ooooh. Sugar gets some people on these boards all riled up!! Forget what the naysayers are saying to you. I have mostly cut out sugar (I eat between 10-15g a day) and the sugar I DO eat comes from fruits and. Veggies ...And I have lost weight and I CERTAINLY am not eating at a calorie. deficit. I feel better, I'm not having energy spikes and drops, sleep better, not sore all the time, not foggy headed, Some people like to spew out what they can quickly google to benefit "the lurkers" ...please... you do what works for you, be healthy about it and remember, everyone is different and everyone's BODY will react differently. Interesting side note: I cut out sugar and my fat (mostly all healthy fats) is always over and I've managed to lose 39 lbs. so far. go figure. I was attacked for a sugar post once as well. It sucks to be talked down to when you are looking for inspiration, motivation, whatever. Good luck to you
Care to elaborate on the bolded? You are losing weight and not eating at a calorie deficit?0 -
I always find it so interesting when some people on these boards try to say there are no bad foods. There actually are. Refined sugar is actually not good for you. Yes we all like it,but cakes, chocolate etc are bad for you. Well done for cutting down on the processed sugar. I'm sure your body will thank you for it!!
Why are those foods bad for you? If you eat cakes and chocolate in moderation, in the context of a healthy diet that includes a balanced nutritional profile, how are they "bad"?
0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »I always find it so interesting when some people on these boards try to say there are no bad foods. There actually are. Refined sugar is actually not good for you. Yes we all like it,but cakes, chocolate etc are bad for you. Well done for cutting down on the processed sugar. I'm sure your body will thank you for it!!
Why are those foods bad for you? If you eat cakes and chocolate in moderation, in the context of a healthy diet that includes a balanced nutritional profile, how are they "bad"?
I had peaches that were going bad, so I much homemade peach pie crumble. It was bad.
1 -
I don't know how that got bolded lol. ... but sure... I should've explained that a little better...what I meant to explain was that I'm eating enough calories to not be unhealthy. I use a fitness tracker and sometimes eat back my exercise calories and sometimes I don't / what I was trying to express was I'm never starving myself -sometimes I go over sometime to go under but I'm still losing weight and I'm still being healthy. I am eating at a deficit to lose weight but I was referring to a post above that basically used the term sayin OP was not eating enough food to be healthy or that's how I read it.0
-
I edited my post for clarity.0
-
Op, how's your less sugar going? I hope you are feeling a little better.0
-
I always find it so interesting when some people on these boards try to say there are no bad foods. There actually are. Refined sugar is actually not good for you.
Unfortunately you are directly bringing up what I thought this thread was not supposed to be about. Having done that, of course it's necessary to respond as you are spreading bad information.
Yes, some foods contribute fewer other nutrients and more calories than others, but that doesn't make them "bad" for many of us. It means that a diet based on too many of them and too few nutrients (including protein, healthy fats, fiber) overall is a bad diet. No one has suggested that all diets are equally good, but obviously one has to be an idiot or lying to one's self to think that if no foods are independently bad that a diet based on only cake would be a good diet. I bet the people who say "no bad foods" eat more veg on average (and have done so for longer) than the people who insist on good and bad foods -- I often see it in people who admit they have to work to get themselves to eat a healthful diet at all.
Anyway, back to sugar: the "refined" sugar is a cake is sucrose, which is made up of fructose and glucose. The sugar is refined in that it is removed from a plant -- typically cane sugar, often beets too. I suppose there are cakes with HFCS also (which is also fructose and glucose, in a different combination, anyway), but as someone picky about my cakes, I haven't run into that. I don't use it when I bake.
So, no, on its own sugar in a sweet isn't meaningfully different from the sugar in fruit. Does that mean there are no differences between cake and an apple? Of course not. But if you claim it's the sugar you don't actually know what they are -- the sugar is the most similar part about them.Yes we all like it,but cakes, chocolate etc are bad for you. Well done for cutting down on the processed sugar. I'm sure your body will thank you for it!!
No, in moderation as part of an overall healthful diet, cake and chocolate is not bad for you.
Also, as I noted in one of the other sugar threads, I'm currently drinking a drink made from ground cocoa beans instead of my morning coffee. It has a few more calories, but no sugar, so clearly chocolate does not inherently have a thing to do with sugar. (Most chocolate we consume has sugar and fat, of course, which is why it's high cal.)
But anyway, let's focus on the cake (for the record, cake seems to have a higher sugar to total carb ratio than other sweet baked goods). I found an entry for a chocolate cake in the database: 356 calories, 31 g of sugar, 43 g of total carbs, 19 g fat. What this means is that about 172 calories are from carbs (or about 48%) and 171 from fat (often sat fat) or, again, 48%. The amount of sugar is about the same as two apples. So, if the sugar is the same, is that cake the same as eating two apples? No, of course not -- the apple has different (and generally more) micronutrients and fiber, the cake has way more calories (probably more than twice as much), due to all that fat, mostly. Seems to me the biggest difference between the cake and apples is fiber and fat, then, not sugar at all. Yet you are claiming sugar is the difference and the problem and why cake (and not an apple) would be a "bad" food and bad for our health. Seems weird and not evidence based at all.
Oh, and again, exactly no one is recommending that people base their diet on cake or not think of lowering cake consumption (if it's a lot -- I can't think of a time when cake was other than a rare treat for me) as part of overall lowering calories.
Apologies to OP for going a bit off topic, but it was required to respond to the post I addressed (not from OP), which spread bad information and did so with quite an aggressive and attacking tone.1 -
I don't know how that got bolded lol. ... but sure... I should've explained that a little better...what I meant to explain was that I'm eating enough calories to not be unhealthy. I use a fitness tracker and sometimes eat back my exercise calories and sometimes I don't / what I was trying to express was I'm never starving myself -sometimes I go over sometime to go under but I'm still losing weight and I'm still being healthy. I am eating at a deficit to lose weight but I was referring to a post above that basically used the term sayin OP was not eating enough food to be healthy or that's how I read it.I don't know how that got bolded lol. ... but sure... I should've explained that a little better...what I meant to explain was that I'm eating enough calories to not be unhealthy. I use a fitness tracker and sometimes eat back my exercise calories and sometimes I don't / what I was trying to express was I'm never starving myself -sometimes I go over sometime to go under but I'm still losing weight and I'm still being healthy. I am eating at a deficit to lose weight but I was referring to a post above that basically used the term sayin OP was not eating enough food to be healthy or that's how I read it.
Thanks for clarifying. I actually bolded it, it helps to focus on a specific part of a response when quoting.
I understand now, you are eating intuitively and by doing so, you are able to eat in a calorie deficit in order to lose weight, without specifically focusing on the calorie amounts. Makes sense, and good for you, a lot of people can't do that! As long as your deficit isn't too big and you aren't losing too quickly, keep it up! I personally alway eat back those exercise calories but I know not everyone does.
1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 394 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
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 944 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions