cutting out sugar

RGv2

I can't wait to check back up on this when I get to work tomorrow.

Lifelink

The obesity epidemic is not because of sugar. It's from eating too much of anything. Good luck cutting out sugar. Sugar is a carb and carbs are apart of a balanced diet. I've learned, for me, that to make my diet sustainable for life, cutting things were unnecessary. I eat the same things I always do and will, just in smaller portions and being mindful of my macronutrient ratios.

Amen to that.

citizenpioneer

Like anything good, sugar should be cut down but doesn't necessarily have to be eliminated. it's just not good because our bodies aren't made to consume that much of it; unless you're in the tropics and surrounded by fruit, it's not that easy to find in nature, which is why we're used to it in small quantities. Of course high fructose corn syrup and other secretly-named sugar products are cheap and make food tasty, so manufacturers are going to cram it wherever they can to get you to buy their product. It can really mess with you in the long run, including making you diabetic.

FrauMama

bpotts44,

And, just personally, know 2 women whose oncologists have suggested they cut out sugar.

And--also personally--I eat very little sugar (and usually very few carbs as well) and am FULLY able to complete very intense workouts with plenty of energy.

bpotts44

bpotts44,

And, just personally, know 2 women whose oncologists have suggested they cut out sugar.

And--also personally--I eat very little sugar (and usually very few carbs as well) and am FULLY able to complete very intense workouts with plenty of energy.

Any oncologist who is current and not afraid to spend time with their client tells their patients not to eat sugar. I have a friend recovering from leukemia and he was specifically told the best lifestyle change he could make was to cut out grains and sugars.

BunBun85

I really tried to follow the topic but all I could think of were the dangers of this particular sugar.

castadiva

OP, I read the article you refer to as well, and had to laugh at some of its' rather absurd claims and ideas (yes, let's all cut out apples, because of their "high carb and sugar content", and eat heaps of beans instead, because of course they have no carbs(sugar) in them at all! NB. Sarcasm).

Essentially, I don't think it's a bad idea to reduce/limit added sugars, reduce consumption of processed foods, and read labels carefully to spot sugars added to products you wouldn't expect to find them in. I'd even say limit grains and starchy vegetables if you have a metabolic issue that makes you more sensitive to insulin, but in general, cutting out sugar entirely is unfeasible and unnecessary. Fruit, vegetables, complex carbohydrates are all necessary parts of a reasonable diet, and all contain sugars. Large chunks of that article were utter claptrap.

Charlottesometimes23

Here is some on cancer. It is not a new concept. Cancer cells typically rely on anaerobic metabolism meaning they can only burn sugar and not fat or ketones. Therefore excess blood glucose levels stimulate cancer cells. In fact the radioactive glucose dyes are very effective at imaging in PET scans. (Gatenby RA. Potential role of FDG-PET imaging in understanding tumor-host interaction. J Nucl Med 1995 May;36(5):893-9)

This is not true. Yes, cancer cells rely on anaerobic metabolism but excess glucose does not stimulate growth. From the Mayo Clinic.
Sugar doesn't make cancer grow faster. All cells, including cancer cells, depend on blood sugar (glucose) for energy. But giving more sugar to cancer cells doesn't speed their growth. Likewise, depriving cancer cells of sugar doesn't slow their growth.

This misconception may be based in part on a misunderstanding of positron emission tomography (PET) scans, which use a small amount of radioactive tracer — typically a form of glucose. All tissues in your body absorb some of this tracer, but tissues that are using more energy — including cancer cells — absorb greater amounts. For this reason, some people have concluded that cancer cells grow faster on sugar. But this isn't true.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/cancer/in-depth/cancer-causes/ART-20044714?pg=2

1931 Nobel laureate in medicine, German Otto Warburg, Ph.D., first discovered that cancer cells have a fundamentally different energy metabolism compared to healthy cells. The crux of his Nobel thesis was that malignant tumors frequently exhibit an increase in anaerobic glycolysis -- a process whereby glucose is used as a fuel by cancer cells with lactic acid as an anaerobic byproduct -- compared to normal tissues.
Warburg O. On the origin of cancer cells. Science 1956 Feb;123:309-14

Yes, but again, this does not mean that increased dietary sugar/glucose increases growth of tumours, it just means that cancer cells use an alternate method of ATP production than most other cells under normal conditions. Glucose can be synthesised from amino acids and fatty acids by gluconeogenesis.

A study of rats fed diets with equal calories from sugars and starches, for example, found the animals on the high-sugar diet developed more cases of breast cancer.
Hoehn, SK, et al. Complex versus simple carbohydrates and mammary tumors in mice. Nutr Cancer 1979;1(3):27.

A mouse model of human breast cancer demonstrated that tumors are sensitive to blood-glucose levels. Sixty-eight mice were injected with an aggressive strain of breast cancer, then fed diets to induce either high blood-sugar (hyperglycemia), normoglycemia or low blood-sugar (hypoglycemia). There was a dose-dependent response in which the lower the blood glucose, the greater the survival rate. After 70 days, 8 of 24 hyperglycemic mice survived compared to 16 of 24 normoglycemic and 19 of 20 hypoglycemic.10 This suggests that regulating sugar intake is key to slowing breast tumor growth
Santisteban GA, et al. Glycemic modulation of tumor tolerance in a mouse model of breast cancer. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 1985 Nov 15;132(3):1174-9.

The often quoted Hoehn study by alternate cancer treatment practitioners does not come up on a Pubmed search. Both are old ~30 years + animal studies.

A four-year study at the National Institute of Public Health and Environmental Protection in the Netherlands compared 111 biliary tract cancer patients with 480 controls. Cancer risk associated with the intake of sugars, independent of other energy sources, more than doubled for the cancer patients.
Moerman CJ, et al. Dietary sugar intake in the aetiology of biliary tract cancer. Int J Epidemiol 1993 Apr;22(2):207-14

An epidemiological study in 21 modern countries that keep track of morbidity and mortality (Europe, North America, Japan and others) revealed that sugar intake is a strong risk factor that contributes to higher breast cancer rates, particularly in older women.
Seeley S. Diet and breast cancer: the possible connection with sugar consumption. Med Hypotheses 1983 Jul;11(3):319-27

The Moerman study used a semi-quantitative FFQ estimated by participants and relatives. Accuracy would be questionable using such a method and the odds ratios were also very low. The research hasn't been cited since and hasn't been replicated. The second article is not a research paper, simply a hypothesis.

These studies demonstrate that shutting down gluconeogenesis benefits cancer treatment: Since cancer cells derive most of their energy from anaerobic glycolysis, Joseph Gold, M.D., director of the Syracuse (N.Y.) Cancer Research Institute and former U.S. Air Force research physician, surmised that a chemical called hydrazine sulfate, used in rocket fuel, could inhibit the excessive gluconeogenesis (making sugar from amino acids) that occurs in cachectic cancer patients. Gold's work demonstrated hydrazine sulfate's ability to slow and reverse cachexia in advanced cancer patients. A placebo-controlled trial followed 101 cancer patients taking either 6 mg hydrazine sulfate three times/day or placebo. After one month, 83 percent of hydrazine sulfate patients increased their weight, compared to 53 percent on placebo.15 A similar study by the same principal researchers, partly funded by the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md., followed 65 patients. Those who took hydrazine sulfate and were in good physical condition before the study began lived an average of 17 weeks longer.16
Chlebowski RT, et al. Hydrazine sulfate in cancer patients with weight loss. A placebo-controlled clinical experience. Cancer 1987 Feb 1;59(3):406-10
Chlebowski RT, et al. Hydrazine sulfate influence on nutritional status and survival in non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 1990 Jan;8(1):9-15

All this is saying is that by blocking the cell's ability to make new glucose from amino acids, proteins were essentially spared, and the wasting and protein depletion seen in cancer cachexia was not so pronounced. Patients survived longer. This has nothing to do with dietary glucose. Dietary glucose is irrelevant as glucose can be synthesized in the body from amino acids and fatty acids.

RGv2

RGv2, I would agree, but why? What changed in my appetite that after eliminating sugar and flour from my diet that allowed me to eat whatever and whenever I wanted at a deficit without any effort, to only begin overeating again when I decided to add processed foods (bread, sugar, etc.) back into my diet? Why now for the past 3 months have I eliminated carbs (no sugar, no flour) have I dropped 25 pounds without effort and eating as much or whenever I want? I guess that is really the point.

Knock yourself out if that's how you want to eat. The point is, it's not the sugar's fault. It's eating too much. Many lose weight without effort by just changing how much they eat, not completely cutting out foods.

Syriene

It might seem hard at first, but if you really stick with it for 30 days, I'm sure you will notice a difference...maybe even have less cravings. Make sure to have lots of non-sugary snacks around the first week or so to have every couple hours. This will help keep your blood sugar leveled out.
Good luck!

Charlottesometimes23

bpotts44,

And, just personally, know 2 women whose oncologists have suggested they cut out sugar.

And--also personally--I eat very little sugar (and usually very few carbs as well) and am FULLY able to complete very intense workouts with plenty of energy.

Any oncologist who is current and not afraid to spend time with their client tells their patients not to eat sugar. I have a friend recovering from leukemia and he was specifically told the best lifestyle change he could make was to cut out grains and sugars.

I can't find any research studies that support this recommendation. I found a large study looking at sweetened softdrinks, but there was no relationship. Interesting...

This is what I did find.

Dietary recommendations during and after cancer treatment: consistently inconsistent? Nutr Cancer. 2013;65(3):430-9. doi: 10.1080/01635581.2013.757629.
Consistent online dietary recommendations are lacking for patients during and after cancer treatment. Given the lack of consensus on dietary recommendations, future research is warranted to develop evidenced-based guidelines that can be used by oncologists and patients alike.

Also, the Nutrition Oncology Resources in my local area.http://www.health.qld.gov.au/nutrition/nemo_oncol.asp do not recommend cutting out sugar (or grains).

ndj1979

bpotts44,

And, just personally, know 2 women whose oncologists have suggested they cut out sugar.

And--also personally--I eat very little sugar (and usually very few carbs as well) and am FULLY able to complete very intense workouts with plenty of energy.

Any oncologist who is current and not afraid to spend time with their client tells their patients not to eat sugar. I have a friend recovering from leukemia and he was specifically told the best lifestyle change he could make was to cut out grains and sugars.

I am a seven year lymphoma survivor and my oncologist never told me to "avoid sugar or grains" ...When I was on chemo they told me to eat as much sugar stuff as possible because they wanted to get my calorie intake up on my off weeks for treatment...

so yea, I am going go ahead and disagree with your blanket statement.

bpotts44

bpotts44,

And, just personally, know 2 women whose oncologists have suggested they cut out sugar.

And--also personally--I eat very little sugar (and usually very few carbs as well) and am FULLY able to complete very intense workouts with plenty of energy.

Any oncologist who is current and not afraid to spend time with their client tells their patients not to eat sugar. I have a friend recovering from leukemia and he was specifically told the best lifestyle change he could make was to cut out grains and sugars.

I am a seven year lymphoma survivor and my oncologist never told me to "avoid sugar or grains" ...When I was on chemo they told me to eat as much sugar stuff as possible because they wanted to get my calorie intake up on my off weeks for treatment...

so yea, I am going go ahead and disagree with your blanket statement.

Congratulations on beating cancer and best of luck going forward.

tigersword

I was reading an article today in the Times Style magazine, which said that sugar hidden in food is the reason why we are fatter than ever. Some health organisations even say that we should be eating as little as 6tsp a day for women, and 8tsp a day for men.

Because of this, I'm considering cutting out all sugar in my diet. Does anyone else do this? The article gave some hints - including how diet foods can have more sugar than the non-diet versions and therefore are bad - but I was wondering if anyone had any experience of cutting out sugar.
Many thanks

I follow the no sugar no grains approach. Sugar and grains are especially bad at spiking insulin and causing fat gain and hunger. By cutting sugar you will make you life much easier by making yourself less hungry and your body will become adapted at using fat as its primary fuel.

False. Protein spikes insulin just as much as carbs. Insulin has nothing to do with fat gain, and insulin is actually one of the major appetite suppressing hormones.

MyFoodGod

Sugar will cause obesity in some people who are suitable to being addicted to it. Other people will not get addicted to it. It seems impossible for those who don't get addicted to it to understand people that are and unfortunately their advice, while good for themselves, doesn't read across at all for those who can get addicted.

This is the bottom line. Sugar is just like alcohol. Some people will get addicted to it and it will mess up there life. Some in more extreme ways. For example, If you are several hundred pounds overweight, you may be dealing with all kinds of issues more extremely than the person 50 pounds overweight. People who weight 500 pounds may have a hard time finding a job, for example.

If a person is an alcoholic it may be more obvious to others. But a person addicted to sugar may be privately suffering while smiling on the outside. Food companies know sugar is addictive/ they add it to so many foods to keep you coming back for more. And some people don't realize how addicted they are/adding sugar to their own recipes unnecessarily to feed their addiction.

And doesn't alcohol break down into sugar in our bodies? Some people need to watch that they don't switch addictions.

arl1286

I've done it-- processed sugar, that is. (Still ate fruit, the occasional honey, etc.) I gave it up during Lent last year, for 6 weeks when I was training for a half this fall, and during November. The first 2 or 3 weeks every time are awful-- withdrawal headaches, etc. But after that, I feel so great.

KetoBella

OP and there you have it.... hope this answered your question. LOL

judychicken

Bump

tigersword

Sugar will cause obesity in some people who are suitable to being addicted to it. Other people will not get addicted to it. It seems impossible for those who don't get addicted to it to understand people that are and unfortunately their advice, while good for themselves, doesn't read across at all for those who can get addicted.

This is the bottom line. Sugar is just like alcohol. Some people will get addicted to it and it will mess up there life. Some in more extreme ways. For example, If you are several hundred pounds overweight, you may be dealing with all kinds of issues more extremely than the person 50 pounds overweight. People who weight 500 pounds may have a hard time finding a job, for example.

If a person is an alcoholic it may be more obvious to others. But a person addicted to sugar may be privately suffering while smiling on the outside. Food companies know sugar is addictive/ they add it to so many foods to keep you coming back for more. And some people don't realize how addicted they are/adding sugar to their own recipes unnecessarily to feed their addiction.

And doesn't alcohol break down into sugar in our bodies? Some people need to watch that they don't switch addictions.

Again, sugar is NOT addictive.