How to battle sugar addiction
Replies
-
crazyycatlady1 wrote: »
This isn't correct. Eating more fruit is beneficial, even after you reach the RDA.
Let's put aside the fiber and vitamins because if one reached their RDA's, eating extra doesn't give one extra credit. So if RDA's were met and one had calories left for a Snicker's or dried fruit, what's the difference in sugar and how is it REALLY impacting health if BOTH were consumed in equal calories?domeofstars wrote: »Snickers would fall into the 'sometimes' category of food while a small serving of dried fruit would count as a serving of fruit which is part of the healthy food pyramid. What I was saying is that dried fruit would be of more nutritional benefit to consume rather than a snickers bar, as it contains fibre. Some fruits also contain vitamins which are good for your health. Snickers contains a large quantity of fat, refined sugars and a small amount of protein. Fine in moderation, ok? Enjoy
...
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/feb/23/five-day-10-portions-fruit-veg-cut-early-death
No link to the original study that I saw, but from the description in the news article it appears to be yet another meta-study that found a correlation. Said correlation is being used to shape public policy without sufficient study to determine if it is meaningful or not. There's going to need to be more targeted studies done before there's a valid conclusion that "Eating more fruit and veg is beneficial, even after you reach the RDA". Which, BTW, is not at all what even the news article claims.
Just an FYI: given how the media sensationalizes and often misinterprets studies, it's a terrible idea to get science knowledge straight from news articles. Go to the original article when you can and at least read the conclusions. They're often not what has been reported.
https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/doi/10.1093/ije/dyw319/3039477/Fruit-and-vegetable-intake-and-the-risk-of
@crazyycatlady1 your links supports "mindful" eating. When we fill up on whole foods it makes it harder to eat a boat load of unwhole foods. Thanks1 -
crazyycatlady1 wrote: »
This isn't correct. Eating more fruit is beneficial, even after you reach the RDA.
Let's put aside the fiber and vitamins because if one reached their RDA's, eating extra doesn't give one extra credit. So if RDA's were met and one had calories left for a Snicker's or dried fruit, what's the difference in sugar and how is it REALLY impacting health if BOTH were consumed in equal calories?domeofstars wrote: »Snickers would fall into the 'sometimes' category of food while a small serving of dried fruit would count as a serving of fruit which is part of the healthy food pyramid. What I was saying is that dried fruit would be of more nutritional benefit to consume rather than a snickers bar, as it contains fibre. Some fruits also contain vitamins which are good for your health. Snickers contains a large quantity of fat, refined sugars and a small amount of protein. Fine in moderation, ok? Enjoy
...
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/feb/23/five-day-10-portions-fruit-veg-cut-early-death
No link to the original study that I saw, but from the description in the news article it appears to be yet another meta-study that found a correlation. Said correlation is being used to shape public policy without sufficient study to determine if it is meaningful or not. There's going to need to be more targeted studies done before there's a valid conclusion that "Eating more fruit and veg is beneficial, even after you reach the RDA". Which, BTW, is not at all what even the news article claims.
Just an FYI: given how the media sensationalizes and often misinterprets studies, it's a terrible idea to get science knowledge straight from news articles. Go to the original article when you can and at least read the conclusions. They're often not what has been reported.
https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/doi/10.1093/ije/dyw319/3039477/Fruit-and-vegetable-intake-and-the-risk-of
Thanks - and yes, I was correct about the gist of the study.
From the results: "An estimated 5.6 and 7.8 million premature deaths worldwide in 2013 may be attributable to a fruit and vegetable intake below 500 and 800 g/day, respectively, if the observed associations are causal."
Also note that the correlation is to the weight of specific types of fruits and vegetables and does not reference RDA at all.2 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »crazyycatlady1 wrote: »
This isn't correct. Eating more fruit is beneficial, even after you reach the RDA.
Let's put aside the fiber and vitamins because if one reached their RDA's, eating extra doesn't give one extra credit. So if RDA's were met and one had calories left for a Snicker's or dried fruit, what's the difference in sugar and how is it REALLY impacting health if BOTH were consumed in equal calories?domeofstars wrote: »Snickers would fall into the 'sometimes' category of food while a small serving of dried fruit would count as a serving of fruit which is part of the healthy food pyramid. What I was saying is that dried fruit would be of more nutritional benefit to consume rather than a snickers bar, as it contains fibre. Some fruits also contain vitamins which are good for your health. Snickers contains a large quantity of fat, refined sugars and a small amount of protein. Fine in moderation, ok? Enjoy
...
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/feb/23/five-day-10-portions-fruit-veg-cut-early-death
No link to the original study that I saw, but from the description in the news article it appears to be yet another meta-study that found a correlation. Said correlation is being used to shape public policy without sufficient study to determine if it is meaningful or not. There's going to need to be more targeted studies done before there's a valid conclusion that "Eating more fruit and veg is beneficial, even after you reach the RDA". Which, BTW, is not at all what even the news article claims.
Just an FYI: given how the media sensationalizes and often misinterprets studies, it's a terrible idea to get science knowledge straight from news articles. Go to the original article when you can and at least read the conclusions. They're often not what has been reported.
https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/doi/10.1093/ije/dyw319/3039477/Fruit-and-vegetable-intake-and-the-risk-of
@crazyycatlady1 your links supports "mindful" eating. When we fill up on whole foods it makes it harder to eat a boat load of unwhole foods. Thanks
I'm not sure how you reached the conclusion based on the study?
I now follow the 800g+ daily recommendation of veg and fruit, but I can easily still eat over my maintenance calories, (1,800 calories), if I'm not being mindful of my total calorie intake. Veg/fruit don't have a lot of staying power, in terms of satiety, for me.1 -
crazyycatlady1 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »crazyycatlady1 wrote: »
This isn't correct. Eating more fruit is beneficial, even after you reach the RDA.
Let's put aside the fiber and vitamins because if one reached their RDA's, eating extra doesn't give one extra credit. So if RDA's were met and one had calories left for a Snicker's or dried fruit, what's the difference in sugar and how is it REALLY impacting health if BOTH were consumed in equal calories?domeofstars wrote: »Snickers would fall into the 'sometimes' category of food while a small serving of dried fruit would count as a serving of fruit which is part of the healthy food pyramid. What I was saying is that dried fruit would be of more nutritional benefit to consume rather than a snickers bar, as it contains fibre. Some fruits also contain vitamins which are good for your health. Snickers contains a large quantity of fat, refined sugars and a small amount of protein. Fine in moderation, ok? Enjoy
...
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/feb/23/five-day-10-portions-fruit-veg-cut-early-death
No link to the original study that I saw, but from the description in the news article it appears to be yet another meta-study that found a correlation. Said correlation is being used to shape public policy without sufficient study to determine if it is meaningful or not. There's going to need to be more targeted studies done before there's a valid conclusion that "Eating more fruit and veg is beneficial, even after you reach the RDA". Which, BTW, is not at all what even the news article claims.
Just an FYI: given how the media sensationalizes and often misinterprets studies, it's a terrible idea to get science knowledge straight from news articles. Go to the original article when you can and at least read the conclusions. They're often not what has been reported.
https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/doi/10.1093/ije/dyw319/3039477/Fruit-and-vegetable-intake-and-the-risk-of
@crazyycatlady1 your links supports "mindful" eating. When we fill up on whole foods it makes it harder to eat a boat load of unwhole foods. Thanks
I'm not sure how you reached the conclusion based on the study?
I now follow the 800g+ daily recommendation of veg and fruit, but I can easily still eat over my maintenance calories (1,800 calories), if I'm not being mindful of my total calorie intake. Veg/fruit don't have a lot of staying power, in terms of satiety, for me.
From one of the photos.
I too do not find these or any carb sources in my case have a lot of staying power int terms of satiety but they are better than eating processed foods in my personal experience.1 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »crazyycatlady1 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »crazyycatlady1 wrote: »
This isn't correct. Eating more fruit is beneficial, even after you reach the RDA.
Let's put aside the fiber and vitamins because if one reached their RDA's, eating extra doesn't give one extra credit. So if RDA's were met and one had calories left for a Snicker's or dried fruit, what's the difference in sugar and how is it REALLY impacting health if BOTH were consumed in equal calories?domeofstars wrote: »Snickers would fall into the 'sometimes' category of food while a small serving of dried fruit would count as a serving of fruit which is part of the healthy food pyramid. What I was saying is that dried fruit would be of more nutritional benefit to consume rather than a snickers bar, as it contains fibre. Some fruits also contain vitamins which are good for your health. Snickers contains a large quantity of fat, refined sugars and a small amount of protein. Fine in moderation, ok? Enjoy
...
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/feb/23/five-day-10-portions-fruit-veg-cut-early-death
No link to the original study that I saw, but from the description in the news article it appears to be yet another meta-study that found a correlation. Said correlation is being used to shape public policy without sufficient study to determine if it is meaningful or not. There's going to need to be more targeted studies done before there's a valid conclusion that "Eating more fruit and veg is beneficial, even after you reach the RDA". Which, BTW, is not at all what even the news article claims.
Just an FYI: given how the media sensationalizes and often misinterprets studies, it's a terrible idea to get science knowledge straight from news articles. Go to the original article when you can and at least read the conclusions. They're often not what has been reported.
https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/doi/10.1093/ije/dyw319/3039477/Fruit-and-vegetable-intake-and-the-risk-of
@crazyycatlady1 your links supports "mindful" eating. When we fill up on whole foods it makes it harder to eat a boat load of unwhole foods. Thanks
I'm not sure how you reached the conclusion based on the study?
I now follow the 800g+ daily recommendation of veg and fruit, but I can easily still eat over my maintenance calories (1,800 calories), if I'm not being mindful of my total calorie intake. Veg/fruit don't have a lot of staying power, in terms of satiety, for me.
From one of the photos.
I too do not find these or any carb sources in my case have a lot of staying power int terms of satiety but they are better than eating processed foods in my personal experience.
I still eat processed foods and have no health problems-today I'm eating over 900g of veg and fruit, as well as chili cheese Fritos and a Snickers candy bar
2 -
This content has been removed.
-
danigirl1011 wrote: »crazyycatlady1 wrote: »danigirl1011 wrote: »danigirl1011 wrote: »First of all, anyone saying it's not a battle or addiction has never had an addiction to it. It is one of the most addictive things out there and is in damned near everything! I know it can be rough. I've been there for 36 years. One thing i have learned is 80/20. Don't beat yourself up on cheat days. I try to stay away from sugar and unhealthy foods while i'm at work and have to pack food to bring in, then saturday is a cheat day. I try to be stubborn enough to only have it that day. You can also try cutting it out slowly. Try getting natural sugars from fruit and honey. I think that really helps me. And i am not overly religious AT ALL and it may sound crazy, but i seriously pray about it. I ask that he help me with my food addiction make me strong when i want to eat bad and give me the energy and motivation to work out. It really can help.
[edited by MFP moderator]
if it is so addictive and bad then why is it OK to have it 20% of the time. IF a heroin addict told you that they went through rehab and were clean but still did heroin 20% of the time you would look at them like they sprung two heads.
I never understood this dichotomy that on the one hand sugar is bad and addictive, but on the other hand it is still OK sometimes...
I love how you like to take EVERYTHING i say and literally pick it apart to bits. I said 80/20 rule for eating. That means 80% healthy and pretty clean. I never once said the 20% should be straight up sugar now did i?? And so what a person that wants to not eat sugar can never celebrate with a friend and eat birthday cake ever again? Can never have christmas cookies or easter candy EVER AGAIN?! Geez dude get off the literal train. My point is it's addictive and the more you cut it out the less you want it. You have no frigging clue (OBVIOUSLY) what it's like to be addicted to it, yet you still have such a strong opinion about it. Coming from someone that has had that problem it does exist! Maybe sit back and listen to others sometimes instead of spouting off at the mouth from one thing i said.
But that's his point-you can't turn on and off a true addiction. If you can continue to eat these types of things in moderation (special events), then how can you claim they're a real addiction? I don't think you understand what the term addiction actually means (I'm not trying to be snarky here, truly).
I get your point. And again, unless you have ever been truly addicted to it i dont think you will ever get it. My dad tries to have these talks with my stepmom and i all the time. He will never get it. Because he hasn't been there. I have a drug addicted cousin. I say just dont buy drugs. It's a choice! But, do you think in his drug addiction it's as easy as "just don't buy the drugs"? Do you think for a food addicted person it's as easy as "just don't buy the junk"? Or "just don't think about food"? And just because i said it's ok to eat it once in awhile doesn't mean you fall off the wagon and go on a full binge. But, the desire is ALWAYS there for me. But, i bring my food with me every day to work. And if i leave work to get food somewhere i lose my parking spot. So, it's incentive to plan ahead and only eat what i bring. Last time i was on mfp i lost over 60 pounds. I ate a full plate (4 entrees) of chinese food every saturday and followed it by a pint of ice cream. But, saturday was the only day i was allowed to do that. And i made it work, because i knew in my mind saturday was coming. But, junk food is everywhere. And it's cheap. And it's easy. And if you don't feel it's an addiction you have been lucky. Some people cannot think about anything else but when they are going to eat next. To me, sounds just like a druggy and getting their next fix? If you looked at it like a recovering drug addict maybe it would help you see it. Not every single drug addicted person remains drug addicted right? There are people who get clean. But, it can be a slippery slope. There are plenty of people with food addictions who can slip and not get back on track the next day or the next week. That happened to me the last 4 years. I was on one big binge. But, just like the logic of a drug addicted person after they get clean. You have to want it and you have to work for it. Same for food people. It's a daily struggle for them too.
http://www.healthline.com/health/food-nutrition/experts-is-sugar-addictive-drug
Hmm, this kind of goes back to what I said in my original post. What would happen if you "allowed" yourself to eat something you normally label as "bad" every single day? If you planned for it just like you did on Saturdays, thereby making it "okay." If it works on Saturday, why wouldn't it work on other days of the week?3 -
Packerjohn wrote: »
Was it the FDA (or some other government agency, like the USDA)? I had the idea that it was diet gurus, not public health agencies. The old 4-4-3-2 and food pyramid guidelines included some fats, I think.The FDA also used to say that fat was bad for us and should be avoided, and look where that ended up.
In the average American diet, sugar crowds out nutritious foods and also provides too many calories. I think that's the reason for the recommendation to limit added sugars to no more than 12.5 teaspoons, or roughly 10% of calorie intake, per day. I think you're right that there are some people with unusually high calorie needs who can have more than that and still be OK.Sugar can be a part of an overall healthy diet, what matters is context and dosage.
If you are meeting calorie, micro, and macro goals then there is nothing wrong with sugar; if sugar is crowding out other nutrients and/or macros then it should be reduced.
it may have been the USDA; my point is that one should not be relying on government agencies for advice about health, nutrition, and food.
Who would you consider an appropriate source of information on health, nutrition and food? Their information pretty much mirrors the current thoughts of any reputable researcher/organization.
i will take a non government peer reviewed source...1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »
Was it the FDA (or some other government agency, like the USDA)? I had the idea that it was diet gurus, not public health agencies. The old 4-4-3-2 and food pyramid guidelines included some fats, I think.The FDA also used to say that fat was bad for us and should be avoided, and look where that ended up.
In the average American diet, sugar crowds out nutritious foods and also provides too many calories. I think that's the reason for the recommendation to limit added sugars to no more than 12.5 teaspoons, or roughly 10% of calorie intake, per day. I think you're right that there are some people with unusually high calorie needs who can have more than that and still be OK.Sugar can be a part of an overall healthy diet, what matters is context and dosage.
If you are meeting calorie, micro, and macro goals then there is nothing wrong with sugar; if sugar is crowding out other nutrients and/or macros then it should be reduced.
it may have been the USDA; my point is that one should not be relying on government agencies for advice about health, nutrition, and food.
Who would you consider an appropriate source of information on health, nutrition and food? Their information pretty much mirrors the current thoughts of any reputable researcher/organization.
i will take a non government peer reviewed source...
But again, doesn't the vast majority of information put out by an organization like the USDA and mainstream researchers match up? I think anyone would be hard pressed to find peer reviewed research that held a position that was significantly different than the USDA.2 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »
Was it the FDA (or some other government agency, like the USDA)? I had the idea that it was diet gurus, not public health agencies. The old 4-4-3-2 and food pyramid guidelines included some fats, I think.The FDA also used to say that fat was bad for us and should be avoided, and look where that ended up.
In the average American diet, sugar crowds out nutritious foods and also provides too many calories. I think that's the reason for the recommendation to limit added sugars to no more than 12.5 teaspoons, or roughly 10% of calorie intake, per day. I think you're right that there are some people with unusually high calorie needs who can have more than that and still be OK.Sugar can be a part of an overall healthy diet, what matters is context and dosage.
If you are meeting calorie, micro, and macro goals then there is nothing wrong with sugar; if sugar is crowding out other nutrients and/or macros then it should be reduced.
it may have been the USDA; my point is that one should not be relying on government agencies for advice about health, nutrition, and food.
Who would you consider an appropriate source of information on health, nutrition and food? Their information pretty much mirrors the current thoughts of any reputable researcher/organization.
i will take a non government peer reviewed source...
But again, doesn't the vast majority of information put out by an organization like the USDA and mainstream researchers match up? I think anyone would be hard pressed to find peer reviewed research that held a position that was significantly different than the USDA.
you are missing my point....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
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K 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