How to Stop Eating Sugar

zyxst

Tiny_Dancer_in_Pink wrote: »

Do carrots have hidden sugar?

It's not on the label.

L1zardQueen

zyxst wrote: »

Tiny_Dancer_in_Pink wrote: »

Do carrots have hidden sugar?

It's not on the label.

My point wasn’t good! Lol. I can hear people clamoring for labels on fruits and vegetables because hidden!

lemurcat12

This idea that it's hard to know how much sugar you are consuming or hard to cut down is ridiculous or disingenuous, IMO. Anyone who really consumes a lot of sugar knows it or is lying to themselves, and how to cut down seems, well, obvious.

Beyond that, assuming that other people are consuming too much sugar and telling them they need to cut down seems weird. Eyes on one's own plate, and all of that.

Of course, if one thinks it is difficult and needs advice on how to do it, identifying the specific problem would be helpful, but the idea we are too dumb to know there's sugar in, you know, sugary cereal or a cookie or a sugary drink is, IMO, odd and a bit insulting.

psychod787

I give up. You can't get some people to believe research.

1houndgal

Most of the carbs in my diet are complex carbs. And 1-3 pieces of fruit a day. *Sometimes I add 1-2 pieces of Dove's dark choclate.

goldthistime

janejellyroll wrote: »

goldthistime wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

Breakfast is the most dangerous meal of the day!

And here I was thinking that as a first world resident with great access to food and a relatively reliable food safety system, I had it made.

The full sentence was: "Breakfast is the most dangerous meal of the day for sugar." Okay so "dangerous" might be overkill for most people, but In terms of a meal, I would have to agree that breakfast often contains the most sugar. Pancakes with syrup, oatmeal with brown sugar, and sweet cereal used to be typical breakfasts for me. I have a savoury breakfast now, usually an egg with veggies of some kind and toast. If you factor in dessert, then perhaps supper competes. Maybe.

Which leads me to the main part of my disagreement with the article. I don't want to spend my time reading every ingredient list and nutrient label searching for hidden sugar. I DO want to avoid desserts and sweet snacks. I'm not necessarily saying it's bad advice, just opposite to the approach that works for me.

Given that the subject of the article was sugar, I thought we could take it for granted the "danger" referenced was sugar and not, say, shark attack or being seduced by a mysterious handsome stranger who is hiding a wife and three kids and will wind up breaking your heart.

janejellyroll wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

Re breakfast being dangerous, I suspect janejellyroll's point is that that's absurd and overwrought language to use and that "dangerous" is the wrong word. I'd agree that it's more common to have lots of sugar at breakfast vs. lunch or dinner (other than desserts), but "dangerous" is the wrong word, and it's not like people who have a donut for breakfast, or even sugary cereal or pancakes or French toast with powdered sugar and syrup or cinnamon toast don't know they are consuming lots of sugar. People who try to pretend this is somehow a surprise or that we need special instructions on how to reduce sugar mystify me. It's basic common sense.

That was exactly my point, thank you. I think it's ridiculously overwrought to describe breakfast as "dangerous," although if someone does feel that the food they are choosing for breakfast is contributing to an unhealthy weight or other health issues, that is something they should probably address. But to single out sugar in a single meal without mentioning portion size, overall calorie consumption for the day, and intake of sufficient vitamins and fiber seems curiously short-sighted to me.

You can easily be overweight or have an unhealthy diet without ever eating breakfast or while having mostly savory breakfasts. You can maintain a healthy weight or have a healthy diet while eating sweet things as part of breakfast. If someone wants sweet oatmeal, toast with jam, or sugar in their coffee for breakfast and it's part of a diet that is meeting their nutritional needs and providing the right amount of energy, I'm not convinced it is at all dangerous.

(Full disclosure: I had a raspberry scone for breakfast so my enjoyment of the occasional sweet breakfast is a factor here).

Sure, I see @lemurcat12 's point and yours that it's overwrought language for most. It's just that I read your quote, agreed with you that it was a ridiculous comment, and then read the full line in the article and had a little pang that we'd misrepresented the author's intent.

Part of why I see it less ridiculous when the words "for sugar" are added on may be that although things are really good for me right now, it wasn't that long ago that I had those "out of control" feelings around sweet treats. I WAS overwrought. That language, "danger", matched my thinking.

I came back to this thread specifically (I was out and am heading out again) because it occurred to me that by quoting you it might look like I was trying to pick a fight. I consider your posts and your outlook (and lemurcat12 's) to be helpful to this forum.

janejellyroll

goldthistime wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

goldthistime wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

Breakfast is the most dangerous meal of the day!

And here I was thinking that as a first world resident with great access to food and a relatively reliable food safety system, I had it made.

The full sentence was: "Breakfast is the most dangerous meal of the day for sugar." Okay so "dangerous" might be overkill for most people, but In terms of a meal, I would have to agree that breakfast often contains the most sugar. Pancakes with syrup, oatmeal with brown sugar, and sweet cereal used to be typical breakfasts for me. I have a savoury breakfast now, usually an egg with veggies of some kind and toast. If you factor in dessert, then perhaps supper competes. Maybe.

Which leads me to the main part of my disagreement with the article. I don't want to spend my time reading every ingredient list and nutrient label searching for hidden sugar. I DO want to avoid desserts and sweet snacks. I'm not necessarily saying it's bad advice, just opposite to the approach that works for me.

Given that the subject of the article was sugar, I thought we could take it for granted the "danger" referenced was sugar and not, say, shark attack or being seduced by a mysterious handsome stranger who is hiding a wife and three kids and will wind up breaking your heart.

janejellyroll wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

Re breakfast being dangerous, I suspect janejellyroll's point is that that's absurd and overwrought language to use and that "dangerous" is the wrong word. I'd agree that it's more common to have lots of sugar at breakfast vs. lunch or dinner (other than desserts), but "dangerous" is the wrong word, and it's not like people who have a donut for breakfast, or even sugary cereal or pancakes or French toast with powdered sugar and syrup or cinnamon toast don't know they are consuming lots of sugar. People who try to pretend this is somehow a surprise or that we need special instructions on how to reduce sugar mystify me. It's basic common sense.

That was exactly my point, thank you. I think it's ridiculously overwrought to describe breakfast as "dangerous," although if someone does feel that the food they are choosing for breakfast is contributing to an unhealthy weight or other health issues, that is something they should probably address. But to single out sugar in a single meal without mentioning portion size, overall calorie consumption for the day, and intake of sufficient vitamins and fiber seems curiously short-sighted to me.

You can easily be overweight or have an unhealthy diet without ever eating breakfast or while having mostly savory breakfasts. You can maintain a healthy weight or have a healthy diet while eating sweet things as part of breakfast. If someone wants sweet oatmeal, toast with jam, or sugar in their coffee for breakfast and it's part of a diet that is meeting their nutritional needs and providing the right amount of energy, I'm not convinced it is at all dangerous.

(Full disclosure: I had a raspberry scone for breakfast so my enjoyment of the occasional sweet breakfast is a factor here).

Sure, I see @lemurcat12 's point and yours that it's overwrought language for most. It's just that I read your quote, agreed with you that it was a ridiculous comment, and then read the full line in the article and had a little pang that we'd misrepresented the author's intent.

Part of why I see it less ridiculous when the words "for sugar" are added on may be that although things are really good for me right now, it wasn't that long ago that I had those "out of control" feelings around sweet treats. I WAS overwrought. That language, "danger", matched my thinking.

I came back to this thread specifically (I was out and am heading out again) because it occurred to me that by quoting you it might look like I was trying to pick a fight. I consider your posts and your outlook (and lemurcat12 's) to be helpful to this forum.

Thanks for clarifying, I didn't take it as you trying to pick a fight.

AnvilHead

candylilacs wrote: »

My, oh my, Big Sugar is watching you!

Well, my little post is something you derided, something you denied, and it's something you know nothing about. It's all about you.

I have failed at dieting. What's more, I am a success at the act of dieting -- only keeping the weight off is the problem. Diabetes mellitus is part of my life. Can you not get that sugar is the issue?

I have never had a sweet tooth in my adult life. I do have five doctors -- cardiologist, electrophysiologist, hematologist, neurologist, and GP (I've had a stroke about two years ago) --- and a perinatologist.

In my former life, I was a professor. I am not uneducated. All my doctors, except the perinatologist, I picked with ideal care.

The Sugar Film is the film I enjoyed last Sunday, but it pointed out some things that I have been discussing with the husband. We need to cut out the sugar that exists in prepared foods.

"How to Stop Eating Sugar" is a New York Times article. Not StopEatingSugar.com or BigSugarKills.com, but the New York Times.

So, it's not about what's concerning you so why are you scoffing at it? This post is for everyone, and take it for what's it worth.

If you were a professor and are educated and have taken that much time and effort to meticulously pick your doctors, I can't understand how you'd fall for such poorly researched, unmitigated BS as That Sugar Film. I guess that's the part that baffles me the most.

paperpudding

lemurcat12 wrote: »

Re breakfast being dangerous, I suspect janejellyroll's point is that that's absurd and overwrought language to use and that "dangerous" is the wrong word. I'd agree that it's more common to have lots of sugar at breakfast vs. lunch or dinner (other than desserts), but "dangerous" is the wrong word, and it's not like people who have a donut for breakfast, or even sugary cereal or pancakes or French toast with powdered sugar and syrup or cinnamon toast don't know they are consuming lots of sugar. People who try to pretend this is somehow a surprise or that we need special instructions on how to reduce sugar mystify me. It's basic common sense.

yes that is what i found grating about the article - lots of melodramatic language telling us things that are flaming obvious - sugary cereals, cans of coke have sugar in them, you dont have to have grains for breakfast..........