Eliminating SUGAR
Replies
-
1
-
nytrifisoul wrote: »
When the TEF of fiber, protein, and fat have been equated, given that the tdee of each twin is "magically" identical, there would be no difference in weight gained or lost. The body does not view calories as processed or less processed. All it percieves is energy. Now as far as a librium intakes, well yes, less processed foods tend to be higher in fiber and protein. So, people may have to eat less to get sated vs hyperprocessed. Check out the Kevin Hall study. Fiber fills people up quicker in general. There is some evidence that the micro biome plays a role in satiety. It also seems to boost glp1. Higher protein will fill people up quicker. There is the protein leverage hypothesis that might have something to do with it. Protein also seems to release glucagon from the liver that increases fullness and and pyy and cck.6 -
After I cut back drastically on what was my veryyyyyy heavy sugar intake the results started showing ( feeling rather ) within days..... First off the energy crashes are gone.... I had NO IDEA how bad that was until I made the switch.... I'm 54, have had multiple surgeries for broken bones and such, ( I do my own stunts!! ) The vast majority of joint pain is now gone...... I am taking creatine and glucosamine chondroitin too... But I was already taking them before I quit sugars.... It was a game changer to say the least...... Write me if you have any questions.....
2 -
Just to add that cutting down on sugar, particularly added sugar, is not just about weight loss. And no I don’t go along with “all foods are good in moderation” either. So there.
The government recommendation is about weight loss. Sugar intake does not cause health issues, besides potentially leading to bad teeth if you don't brush and practice good dental hygiene regularly.
But if you are doing it for other reasons besides assisting with weight management, and it's not specifically to treat symptoms of certain diseases you may have (the diseases themselves are not caused by sugar intake), then you are jst doing it for fun.
MikePty - here’s some real info (facts and all that) on sugar for you. Have fun. 😊
https://nutritionfacts.org/topics/sugar/
LOL. Just because something has facts in its title does not in fact, make them facts. That people eat more sugar now and also happen to have more chronic diseases now does not mean one causes the other. People also eat a lot more calories in general now, they eat more fat, more meat, and move less. They also die young a lot less of easily preventable diseases. You can't live to get a chronic disease if you are dying of dysentery at 5 years old.
Sent link with more than just “fact” in the title. Anyone wanting more in depth info on sugar (and other things) might want to check some of it out. Just trying to help. LOL back at ya!
1 -
-
deannalfisher wrote: »
I think we have to look at it like this. Certain foods maybe more supportive of your goals than others. Good/Bad goes back to the black/white thinking we humans like. I think in an environment where people are not counting calories, but acting more intuitively with foods, certain foods are easier to maintain your weight or even lose weight on. Is it possible to overeat on chicken breast and broccoli? Yes. Easy to do if you are not adding loads of extra calories to them? Probably not.6 -
Just to add that cutting down on sugar, particularly added sugar, is not just about weight loss. And no I don’t go along with “all foods are good in moderation” either. So there.
The government recommendation is about weight loss. Sugar intake does not cause health issues, besides potentially leading to bad teeth if you don't brush and practice good dental hygiene regularly.
But if you are doing it for other reasons besides assisting with weight management, and it's not specifically to treat symptoms of certain diseases you may have (the diseases themselves are not caused by sugar intake), then you are jst doing it for fun.
MikePty - here’s some real info (facts and all that) on sugar for you. Have fun. 😊
https://nutritionfacts.org/topics/sugar/
LOL. Just because something has facts in its title does not in fact, make them facts. That people eat more sugar now and also happen to have more chronic diseases now does not mean one causes the other. People also eat a lot more calories in general now, they eat more fat, more meat, and move less. They also die young a lot less of easily preventable diseases. You can't live to get a chronic disease if you are dying of dysentery at 5 years old.
Sent link with more than just “fact” in the title. Anyone wanting more in depth info on sugar (and other things) might want to check some of it out. Just trying to help. LOL back at ya!
As I explained above, the link did not support the claim that sugar in any amount is bad for us. It suggested that too much sugar (meaning added sugar) is too common in the average diet (although this is in large part due to its association with calories that often come as much from added fat). You could avoid the bad things discussed in the link by using moderation combined with a healthy overall diet and not being obese. (Although the author would push other things too, like cutting out all animal products.)8 -
BrotherBill913 wrote: »After I cut back drastically on what was my veryyyyyy heavy sugar intake the results started showing ( feeling rather ) within days..... First off the energy crashes are gone.... I had NO IDEA how bad that was until I made the switch.... I'm 54, have had multiple surgeries for broken bones and such, ( I do my own stunts!! ) The vast majority of joint pain is now gone...... I am taking creatine and glucosamine chondroitin too... But I was already taking them before I quit sugars.... It was a game changer to say the least...... Write me if you have any questions.....
So you start by saying that you were NOT using moderation, but in fact had an extremely heavy sugar intake (I am assuming added sugar, correct me if I am wrong). I am not surprised, given that, that you might have been experiencing energy crashes, I think many do when they eat lots of refined carbs and not enough fiber and protein. Also, if you quite eating what seems to have been a large part of your diet, hopefully you replaced them with more nutrient-dense foods, which often would be expected to have a positive effect too.
What I don't get is attributing this to "quit[ting] sugars." Even your first sentence sounds more like moderation (cutting back drastically on a very heavy intake), and even if not there's no reason to suppose that the result of someone who ate in moderation (say like what the guidelines provided earlier in the thread recommend) vs. none at all. (And if the claim is about intrinsic sugars, not just added, I would say that's not supported by any credible recommendations.)5 -
Just to add that cutting down on sugar, particularly added sugar, is not just about weight loss. And no I don’t go along with “all foods are good in moderation” either. So there.
The government recommendation is about weight loss. Sugar intake does not cause health issues, besides potentially leading to bad teeth if you don't brush and practice good dental hygiene regularly.
But if you are doing it for other reasons besides assisting with weight management, and it's not specifically to treat symptoms of certain diseases you may have (the diseases themselves are not caused by sugar intake), then you are jst doing it for fun.
MikePty - here’s some real info (facts and all that) on sugar for you. Have fun. 😊
https://nutritionfacts.org/topics/sugar/
LOL. Just because something has facts in its title does not in fact, make them facts. That people eat more sugar now and also happen to have more chronic diseases now does not mean one causes the other. People also eat a lot more calories in general now, they eat more fat, more meat, and move less. They also die young a lot less of easily preventable diseases. You can't live to get a chronic disease if you are dying of dysentery at 5 years old.
Sent link with more than just “fact” in the title. Anyone wanting more in depth info on sugar (and other things) might want to check some of it out. Just trying to help. LOL back at ya!
As I explained above, the link did not support the claim that sugar in any amount is bad for us. It suggested that too much sugar (meaning added sugar) is too common in the average diet (although this is in large part due to its association with calories that often come as much from added fat). You could avoid the bad things discussed in the link by using moderation combined with a healthy overall diet and not being obese. (Although the author would push other things too, like cutting out all animal products.)
I agree ma'am. I have seen the data and the amount of energy from carbs has declined since the turn of the 20th century and the amount of energy from fat has increased. As far as add "sugar", imho the biggest increase has been sweetened beverages. In most research, liquid calories are not compensated for very well. Wow... the woo's are strong in this thread...3 -
psychod787 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »
I think we have to look at it like this. Certain foods maybe more supportive of your goals than others. Good/Bad goes back to the black/white thinking we humans like. I think in an environment where people are not counting calories, but acting more intuitively with foods, certain foods are easier to maintain your weight or even lose weight on. Is it possible to overeat on chicken breast and broccoli? Yes. Easy to do if you are not adding loads of extra calories to them? Probably not.
I generally agree with this (and I'm basically off sweet foods other than fruit now anyway, for personal taste reasons), but I think saying "eating plainly prepared whole foods and generally focusing more on lean meats than higher fat ones make it harder to overeat" doesn't mean that's the only way to avoid it. For some, doing that will make them less likely to feel satisfied and thus stay on the way of eating long-term, and for them and others who just want to have a more diverse diet, there are ways to include higher cal or easier to overeat foods without it being all or nothing or, often, without even having to count. These include mostly focusing on nutrient dense foods (and mostly lower cal with smaller portions of higher cal but nutrient dense items like nuts and seeds), but including a set portion of higher cal items regularly or going out to dinner once a week or things like that. If you use your mind (mindful eating) and weigh regularly, why not?3 -
deannalfisher wrote: »
Highly processed oils (high in Omega 6s) are not really good for us. Given the body competes Omega 3s and Omega 6s, it's better to eliminate or minimize them.
And technically, added sugar isn't good for us. It's not bad with the exception of high quantities, but it's certainly not beneficial or going to improve any of your metabolic markers.
IMO, things that are good improve metabolic health. Things that are bad can negatively impact health. Things they are neutral don't have an impact regardless of quantity.
Outside of the pedantic arguments on this board, I would and have advise people to focus on whole foods and eliminate or reduce added sugar, just like I tell people to reduce their intake of industrial oils. Why? Because these strategies can lead to improved quality of food and have a better chance of improving health outside of the benefits of just weight loss and exercise.
On the pedantic front, if people want added sugars in their diet (which I have done so), I would suggest limiting to 10% of total calories. This will maximize their ability to get foods that actually benefit them.
ETA: Man made transfats are absolutely bad for you. There is sufficient evidence to support that.9 -
psychod787 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »
I think we have to look at it like this. Certain foods maybe more supportive of your goals than others. Good/Bad goes back to the black/white thinking we humans like. I think in an environment where people are not counting calories, but acting more intuitively with foods, certain foods are easier to maintain your weight or even lose weight on. Is it possible to overeat on chicken breast and broccoli? Yes. Easy to do if you are not adding loads of extra calories to them? Probably not.
I generally agree with this (and I'm basically off sweet foods other than fruit now anyway, for personal taste reasons), but I think saying "eating plainly prepared whole foods and generally focusing more on lean meats than higher fat ones make it harder to overeat" doesn't mean that's the only way to avoid it. For some, doing that will make them less likely to feel satisfied and thus stay on the way of eating long-term, and for them and others who just want to have a more diverse diet, there are ways to include higher cal or easier to overeat foods without it being all or nothing or, often, without even having to count. These include mostly focusing on nutrient dense foods (and mostly lower cal with smaller portions of higher cal but nutrient dense items like nuts and seeds), but including a set portion of higher cal items regularly or going out to dinner once a week or things like that. If you use your mind (mindful eating) and weigh regularly, why not?
Funny @lemurcat2 , that's kind of how I am doing things these days. Making general statements are hard. As we know, there are outliers on all things, though, I think there is plenty of evidence to defend my thoughts.2 -
Pssst.... let's not make personal attacks. We should be able to have a respectful discussion about some people's choice to reduce their added sugar intake.8
-
psychod787 wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »
I think we have to look at it like this. Certain foods maybe more supportive of your goals than others. Good/Bad goes back to the black/white thinking we humans like. I think in an environment where people are not counting calories, but acting more intuitively with foods, certain foods are easier to maintain your weight or even lose weight on. Is it possible to overeat on chicken breast and broccoli? Yes. Easy to do if you are not adding loads of extra calories to them? Probably not.
I generally agree with this (and I'm basically off sweet foods other than fruit now anyway, for personal taste reasons), but I think saying "eating plainly prepared whole foods and generally focusing more on lean meats than higher fat ones make it harder to overeat" doesn't mean that's the only way to avoid it. For some, doing that will make them less likely to feel satisfied and thus stay on the way of eating long-term, and for them and others who just want to have a more diverse diet, there are ways to include higher cal or easier to overeat foods without it being all or nothing or, often, without even having to count. These include mostly focusing on nutrient dense foods (and mostly lower cal with smaller portions of higher cal but nutrient dense items like nuts and seeds), but including a set portion of higher cal items regularly or going out to dinner once a week or things like that. If you use your mind (mindful eating) and weigh regularly, why not?
Funny @lemurcat2 , that's kind of how I am doing things these days. Making general statements are hard. As we know, there are outliers on all things, though, I think there is plenty of evidence to defend my thoughts.
Yeah, I think we mostly agree, with maybe some minor disagreements on exactly why the Kevin Hall study had the results it did (and maybe not even that so much once communication difficulties are ironed out!).2 -
psychod787 wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »
I think we have to look at it like this. Certain foods maybe more supportive of your goals than others. Good/Bad goes back to the black/white thinking we humans like. I think in an environment where people are not counting calories, but acting more intuitively with foods, certain foods are easier to maintain your weight or even lose weight on. Is it possible to overeat on chicken breast and broccoli? Yes. Easy to do if you are not adding loads of extra calories to them? Probably not.
I generally agree with this (and I'm basically off sweet foods other than fruit now anyway, for personal taste reasons), but I think saying "eating plainly prepared whole foods and generally focusing more on lean meats than higher fat ones make it harder to overeat" doesn't mean that's the only way to avoid it. For some, doing that will make them less likely to feel satisfied and thus stay on the way of eating long-term, and for them and others who just want to have a more diverse diet, there are ways to include higher cal or easier to overeat foods without it being all or nothing or, often, without even having to count. These include mostly focusing on nutrient dense foods (and mostly lower cal with smaller portions of higher cal but nutrient dense items like nuts and seeds), but including a set portion of higher cal items regularly or going out to dinner once a week or things like that. If you use your mind (mindful eating) and weigh regularly, why not?
Funny @lemurcat2 , that's kind of how I am doing things these days. Making general statements are hard. As we know, there are outliers on all things, though, I think there is plenty of evidence to defend my thoughts.
Yeah, I think we mostly agree, with maybe some minor disagreements on exactly why the Kevin Hall study had the results it did (and maybe not even that so much once communication difficulties are ironed out!).
On a side note I finally had time to listen to James Krieger do a complete breakdown of the Hall study. One thing I noticed was while the energy density of the food offered was nearly identical, the density of the eaten food was not. The hyperprocessed was 1.3 and the unprocessed was 1.08/GM. It might be coincidental that one of the research studies I read showed that the average density of hunter gather groups was between 1-1.1cals/ gm.1 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »RelCanonical wrote: »RelCanonical wrote: »I won't say I've eliminated sugar. For all practical purposes I have in fact done just that but I won't say it because of the irrational replies it invokes from people who act offended by the possibility.
For me, it came about gradually by phasing out categories of "foods" one at a time. Didn't switch to sweeteners. Just got used to, and eventually came to prefer foods unsweetened. I never swore an oath of sugar abstinence though. Last year I might have made a cup of hot cocoa three or four times. I might have three or four next year too. If pressed I could come up with more examples of very occasional use.
One of the last regular uses was adding brown sugar to the morning porridge but I weaned myself off that and now it's fine either naturally sweetened with fruit or savory. I've lost over 60 pounds so far and have another 40 or so to go to get to normal or healthy weight. When I get there, maybe I'll consider having an occasional dessert. But until then it's easier to skip them altogether than struggle with moderation. If moderating food came easy I wouldn't have become obese in the first place. To all the people who will have the irresistible compulsion to click disagree, I remind you, I'm not taking a position one way or the other on what you should do. And maybe I'll add that if the original poster decides to eliminate added sugars, that won't affect you either.
So you don't eat any fruits? Where do you get some of the key vitamins and minerals from then?
I just saw in another post that he had beets in his diary. Where do people think refined sugar generally comes from? Cane and...beets.
FTR, sugar beets are a different cultivar from regular vegetable beets. Very different. Look more like a fat, stubby parsnip.
Both got that delicious sugar.
Sure. Lots in the one case (sugar beets), not much in the other (regular red beets).
Dog cookies and Pepperidge Farm Sausalito Milk Chocolate Macadamia Cookies are both "cookies", too, but I'd only eat the latter. Just not the same, not close.
Even if in the debate section, the beet thing . . . ?
According to https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/169145/nutrients , about three-quarters of the calories in regular beets are from sugar. I wouldn't call that "not so much, even if it's less than in the beets grown for sugar.
Just to backtrack: A PP (in which the person said they eat fruit and occasionally hot cocoa), but had reduced sugar significantly while losing weight, now preferring most things unsweetened, to the point of eliminating sugar for all practical purposes. Given the fruit comment, it seemed (to me) pretty clear that this meant elimiating added sugar. Let's call this "Poster A", or PA for short.
A later poster (Poster B, or PB) said something along the lines that PA had posted in a different thread that s/he ate beets, and that sugar cane and beets are where refined sugar come from. This was, IMO, frankly kind of ridiculous way to taunt someone for posting what PA had written.
That's where I pointed out that those were different beets.
So, yes, around 3/4 of the whopping 35 calories in a 2" regular vegetable beet come from sugar. While I don't consider that "much" sugar, particularly, those 24-ish calories of sugar in each regular vegetable beet still don't seem like substantial hypocrisy on the part of someone who has said they've found that they now prefer things unsweetened, especially in a diet that explicitly contains fruit, and the rare hot cocoa.
That was the context in which I mentioned that regular vegetable beets are a different cultivar from sugar beets, with materially less sugar than sugar beets, which is true. The point was never that regular beets contain no sugar. Of course they do. They're also a very nutritious food, with a small bit of protein (incomplete, but 15% of calories!
), fiber, and some helpful micros.
None of which matters, either, in context of commenting on the poor factual basis for using someone's beet-eating to make fun of their comment about eating minimal sugar, on account of sugar being made from beets.
Beets are good. I like beets. They contain sugar. Meh.4 -
psychod787 wrote: »I laugh when i think about this. To get the amount of sugar in a 20oz bottle of soda, someone would have to eat 2 or so feet of sugar cane. Damn... think about all that fiber! Lol
I think the way people normally eat it is to chew a hunk of cane to extract the sweetness, then spit out the woody bits.
If so:
* You don't have the fiber to slow down digesting the sugar!
* It goes straight to your bloodstream!!
* It spikes your insulin!!!
* It's just like drinking soda, except for the chewing!!!!
Open for discussion: How many calories all that chewing burns.
2 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »RelCanonical wrote: »RelCanonical wrote: »I won't say I've eliminated sugar. For all practical purposes I have in fact done just that but I won't say it because of the irrational replies it invokes from people who act offended by the possibility.
For me, it came about gradually by phasing out categories of "foods" one at a time. Didn't switch to sweeteners. Just got used to, and eventually came to prefer foods unsweetened. I never swore an oath of sugar abstinence though. Last year I might have made a cup of hot cocoa three or four times. I might have three or four next year too. If pressed I could come up with more examples of very occasional use.
One of the last regular uses was adding brown sugar to the morning porridge but I weaned myself off that and now it's fine either naturally sweetened with fruit or savory. I've lost over 60 pounds so far and have another 40 or so to go to get to normal or healthy weight. When I get there, maybe I'll consider having an occasional dessert. But until then it's easier to skip them altogether than struggle with moderation. If moderating food came easy I wouldn't have become obese in the first place. To all the people who will have the irresistible compulsion to click disagree, I remind you, I'm not taking a position one way or the other on what you should do. And maybe I'll add that if the original poster decides to eliminate added sugars, that won't affect you either.
So you don't eat any fruits? Where do you get some of the key vitamins and minerals from then?
I just saw in another post that he had beets in his diary. Where do people think refined sugar generally comes from? Cane and...beets.
FTR, sugar beets are a different cultivar from regular vegetable beets. Very different. Look more like a fat, stubby parsnip.
Both got that delicious sugar.
Sure. Lots in the one case (sugar beets), not much in the other (regular red beets).
Dog cookies and Pepperidge Farm Sausalito Milk Chocolate Macadamia Cookies are both "cookies", too, but I'd only eat the latter. Just not the same, not close.
Even if in the debate section, the beet thing . . . ?
According to https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/169145/nutrients , about three-quarters of the calories in regular beets are from sugar. I wouldn't call that "not so much, even if it's less than in the beets grown for sugar.
Just to backtrack: A PP (in which the person said they eat fruit and occasionally hot cocoa), but had reduced sugar significantly while losing weight, now preferring most things unsweetened, to the point of eliminating sugar for all practical purposes. Given the fruit comment, it seemed (to me) pretty clear that this meant elimiating added sugar. Let's call this "Poster A", or PA for short.
A later poster (Poster B, or PB) said something along the lines that PA had posted in a different thread that s/he ate beets, and that sugar cane and beets are where refined sugar come from. This was, IMO, frankly kind of ridiculous way to taunt someone for posting what PA had written.
That's where I pointed out that those were different beets.
So, yes, around 3/4 of the whopping 35 calories in a 2" regular vegetable beet come from sugar. While I don't consider that "much" sugar, particularly, those 24-ish calories of sugar in each regular vegetable beet still don't seem like substantial hypocrisy on the part of someone who has said they've found that they now prefer things unsweetened, especially in a diet that explicitly contains fruit, and the rare hot cocoa.
That was the context in which I mentioned that regular vegetable beets are a different cultivar from sugar beets, with materially less sugar than sugar beets, which is true. The point was never that regular beets contain no sugar. Of course they do. They're also a very nutritious food, with a small bit of protein (incomplete, but 15% of calories! ), fiber, and some helpful micros.
None of which matters, either, in context of commenting on the poor factual basis for using someone's beet-eating to make fun of their comment about eating minimal sugar, on account of sugar being made from beets.
Beets are good. I like beets. They contain sugar. Meh.
I had to reread Poster A's post several times before I saw the fruit mention in the third paragraph. When he talks about "For all practical purposes I have in fact [eliminated sugar]" in the first paragraph it wasn't clear that he was referring solely to added sugar, and with that lack of clarity I feel Poster B's comment about beets was fair if she thought he was referring to all sugar.
Now that I see that fruit reference, I get where you have been coming from.
Because of this potential for confusion, I am careful to specify "added sugar", just like I will never say "processed foods" here on MFP when I mean "ultra processed foods" like the Brazilian definition.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K 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
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 901 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions