Need serious help with SUGAR!!!!

parkscs

And I'd agree kale is generally the better choice over cake as well. Just because it's possible to fit into your macros doesn't mean it's generally a healthy food. Cake is better than some choices, but worse than a lot of others, for the average person. Recognizing that doesn't mean you have an unhealthy relationship with food, nor does fitting cake into your daily calories/macros. Eating cake without fitting it into your macros/calories is a better indication that you have an unhealthy relationship with food.

rejectuf

I completely understand your point. And again, if it works for you then cool.

For most people on this site, though, I'd imagine that learning to choose the apple will lead to better outcomes in the long term.


This is a horrible mentality that promotes food aversion over healthy living, especially in the chronically overweight.

I would also like to add that GL/GI theory is easily debunked. I was recommended a low-GI diet to lose weight, and once I'd bought a book explaining the principles to me and read that the GL/GI of any food is lowered by consuming it with a source of protein and/or fat, I realised the whole concept was just a repackaged telling of the basic principles of digestion.

So wait, now choosing fruit is actively harmful? Am I in danger for not eating a daily slice of cake?

perseverance14

I can't believe I read all 20 pages of this and no one posted the below study. My head seriously hurts from it, :laugh:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20056521

Conclusion: There is no support from the human literature for the hypothesis that sucrose may be physically addictive or that addiction to sugar plays a role in eating disorders.

So it goes back to a handful of people say, it's a habit. Just like the reason why children become fat when both parents are fat... they form unhealthy habits.


http://www.wsro.org/Portals/12/Docs/position-statement-sugar-and-addiction-2012.pdf

"In summary, the current evidence does not support the idea that human addiction to sugar is a valid concept or that it is a characteristic of individuals who are obese"

So you are just disregarding the rest of the conclusions. I doubt you remember, but my reason for posting that was if possibly those with other addictions (such as alcoholics) like sugar because it hits the same sensors.

I know plenty of fat parents with skinny children and vice-versa, so you can't say that across the board either.

perseverance14

And I'd agree kale is generally the better choice over cake as well. Just because it's possible to fit into your macros doesn't mean it's generally a healthy food. Cake is better than some choices, but worse than a lot of others, for the average person. Recognizing that doesn't mean you have an unhealthy relationship with food, nor does fitting cake into your daily calories/macros. Eating cake without fitting it into your macros/calories is a better indication that you have an unhealthy relationship with food.

I treat things like cake like an occasional treat, if celebrating an occasion I will have a piece. Right now I can't have it at all, but if I ate cake every day I would weigh half a ton.

HappyStack

And I'd agree kale is generally the better choice over cake as well. Just because it's possible to fit into your macros doesn't mean it's generally a healthy food. Cake is better than some choices, but worse than a lot of others, for the average person. Recognizing that doesn't mean you have an unhealthy relationship with food, nor does fitting cake into your daily calories/macros. Eating cake without fitting it into your macros/calories is a better indication that you have an unhealthy relationship with food.

But cake over dark leafy greens/green veg/fruit once in a while isn't going to break the nutritional bank, even for people who aren't logging or otherwise monitoring their food choices diligently.

If we're talking about daily choices - which nobody advocating the "let them eat cake" scenario has said, moderation is key after all, but we'll dive in - yes... cake every day in lieu of more nutrient dense foods can present a problem. But people are picking at foods that contain sugar specifically to imply they are bad for your health.

Why not the chicken kiev full of butter?
Why not the curry sauce full of ground almonds?
Why not the cream on top of your soup?

It's silly to run down the list of what the "average" person will eat in a day and say, "well this specific food is clearly responsible for your obesity." It's a culmination and frequency that presents a problem. Like I said earlier, if I'm otherwise aware of what I eat... I can eat cake every day and maintain good health.

rejectuf

I can't believe I read all 20 pages of this and no one posted the below study. My head seriously hurts from it, :laugh:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20056521

Conclusion: There is no support from the human literature for the hypothesis that sucrose may be physically addictive or that addiction to sugar plays a role in eating disorders.

So it goes back to a handful of people say, it's a habit. Just like the reason why children become fat when both parents are fat... they form unhealthy habits.


http://www.wsro.org/Portals/12/Docs/position-statement-sugar-and-addiction-2012.pdf

"In summary, the current evidence does not support the idea that human addiction to sugar is a valid concept or that it is a characteristic of individuals who are obese"

While the first study is certainly valid, the second one is literally a position paper from the sugar industry.

HappyStack

So wait, now choosing fruit is actively harmful? Am I in danger for not eating a daily slice of cake?

Deliberately misrepresenting what I said just does your argument more harm than good. If you're not going to engage in a sensible discussion with sensible contributions then there's no point in trying, really.

rejectuf

This is a horrible mentality that promotes food aversion over healthy living, especially in the chronically overweight.


So wait, now choosing fruit is actively harmful? Am I in danger for not eating a daily slice of cake?


Deliberately misrepresenting what I said just does your argument more harm than good. If you're not going to engage in a sensible discussion with sensible contributions then there's no point in trying, really.

I would say the statement I replied to is guilty of the same. At no point have I promoted some kind of compulsive food aversion. I have only stated that a piece of fruit offers more nutritional benefits than cookies and cake. For someone who legitimately struggles with consuming too many sweets, choosing fruit can offer benefits in controlling calories and providing better nutrition.

parkscs

But cake over dark leafy greens/green veg/fruit once in a while isn't going to break the nutritional bank, even for people who aren't logging or otherwise monitoring their food choices diligently.

If we're talking about daily choices - which nobody advocating the "let them eat cake" scenario has said, moderation is key after all, but we'll dive in - yes... cake every day in lieu of more nutrient dense foods can present a problem. But people are picking at foods that contain sugar specifically to imply they are bad for your health.

Why not the chicken kiev full of butter?
Why not the curry sauce full of ground almonds?
Why not the cream on top of your soup?

It's silly to run down the list of what the "average" person will eat in a day and say, "well this specific food is clearly responsible for your obesity." It's a culmination and frequency that presents a problem. Like I said earlier, if I'm otherwise aware of what I eat... I can eat cake every day and maintain good health.

I addressed cake because cake was the food in question. I'm not one to bash sugar consumption, even though I personally don't have much of a sweet tooth. I don't think I've ever posted here that I think sugar is bad for you, and for that matter there's more to cake than just the sugar.

For that matter, I posted in another thread just today that I drink diet coke, and while is it by no means healthy, I don't sweat it because I enjoy it and I drink it in moderation. You have to balance health with enjoyment in my opinion. I do the same with bourbon, which includes zero nutritional content. I enjoy it though, so I find a way to work it in. But, simply because I can and do fit it into my calories doesn't make it a healthy food.

I guess I just don't see any conflict between finding ways to fit foods into your calories and still recognizing that those foods are, generally speaking, unhealthy foods. To me, there's no need to go to either extreme (i.e., saying "nothing is unhealthy" vs. saying "unhealthy foods must always be avoided at all costs").

HappyStack

I would say the statement I replied to is guilty of the same. At no point have I promoted some kind of compulsive food aversion. I have only stated that a piece of fruit offers more nutritional benefits than cookies and cake. For someone who legitimately struggles with consuming too many sweets, choosing fruit can offer benefits in controlling calories and providing better nutrition.

Well, you actually stated that you believe sugar isn't a macronutrient and should only be consumed in moderation even from fruit.

Here's a quote, so you can see your brand of food aversion verbatim.

I don't consider sugar to be a macronutrient. In my opinion, it should be avoided as much as possible in it's refined forms. When taken in via fruit and whole foods that have fiber and other health benefits, it's fine in moderation.

All carbs are a mixture of fibre and sugar, ergo, sugar is a macro. In chemistry, the words carbohydrate and saccharide are used interchangeably.

jonnythan

I completely understand your point. And again, if it works for you then cool.

For most people on this site, though, I'd imagine that learning to choose the apple will lead to better outcomes in the long term.


This is a horrible mentality that promotes food aversion over healthy living, especially in the chronically overweight.

I would also like to add that GL/GI theory is easily debunked. I was recommended a low-GI diet to lose weight, and once I'd bought a book explaining the principles to me and read that the GL/GI of any food is lowered by consuming it with a source of protein and/or fat, I realised the whole concept was just a repackaged telling of the basic principles of digestion.

So wait, now choosing fruit is actively harmful? Am I in danger for not eating a daily slice of cake?

No, choosing fruit is not harmful.

Putting someone in the position where they feel that they SHOULD choose fruit, even when there's no nutritional reason to do so, is harmful.

HappyStack

I addressed cake because cake was the food in question. I'm not one to bash sugar consumption, even though I personally don't have much of a sweet tooth. I don't think I've ever posted here that I think sugar is bad for you, and for that matter there's more to cake than just the sugar.

For that matter, I posted in another thread just today that I drink diet coke, and while is it by no means healthy, I don't sweat it because I enjoy it and I drink it in moderation. You have to balance health with enjoyment in my opinion. I do the same with bourbon, which includes zero nutritional content. I enjoy it though, so I find a way to work it in. But, simply because I can and do fit it into my calories doesn't make it a healthy food.

I guess I just don't see any conflict between finding ways to fit foods into your calories and still recognizing that those foods are, generally speaking, unhealthy foods. To me, there's no need to go to either extreme (i.e., saying "nothing is unhealthy" vs. saying "unhealthy foods must always be avoided at all costs").

Why are any of those things unhealthy though?

I can give you many, many reasons why consuming certain things are healthy or inconsequential to health. Including alcohol. I've yet to see anybody give a legitimate reason for why anything, in moderation, is unhealthy.

jonnythan

Many people don't even hit their macros needs reliably, much less their micronutrients, so let's assume you haven't hit all your RDIs for the day.

Then the discussion is moot, because over and over and over again, every day, we say that hitting those nutrient goals are the absolute 100% number 1 priority.

We're not having a discussion about nudging some average person's unlogged diet one way or another. We're talking about the context of the logged diet where the #1 priority is hitting nutrient goals.

rejectuf

I would say the statement I replied to is guilty of the same. At no point have I promoted some kind of compulsive food aversion. I have only stated that a piece of fruit offers more nutritional benefits than cookies and cake. For someone who legitimately struggles with consuming too many sweets, choosing fruit can offer benefits in controlling calories and providing better nutrition.

Well, you actually stated that you believe sugar isn't a macronutrient and should only be consumed in moderation even from fruit.

Here's a quote, so you can see your brand of food aversion verbatim.

I don't consider sugar to be a macronutrient. In my opinion, it should be avoided as much as possible in it's refined forms. When taken in via fruit and whole foods that have fiber and other health benefits, it's fine in moderation.

All carbs are a mixture of fibre and sugar, ergo, sugar is a macro. In chemistry, the words carbohydrate and saccharide are used interchangeably.

I'm not sure you can say starches and simple sugars are the same simply because they are both saccharides.

So I guess if we want to be really, really specific my personal diet is that I like to eat foods that aren't high in simple sugars. When I do consume foods high in simple sugars (e.g. fruit) I like to choose ones that have fiber and other nutritional benefits (like fruit).

psuLemon

I can't believe I read all 20 pages of this and no one posted the below study. My head seriously hurts from it, :laugh:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20056521

Conclusion: There is no support from the human literature for the hypothesis that sucrose may be physically addictive or that addiction to sugar plays a role in eating disorders.

So it goes back to a handful of people say, it's a habit. Just like the reason why children become fat when both parents are fat... they form unhealthy habits.


http://www.wsro.org/Portals/12/Docs/position-statement-sugar-and-addiction-2012.pdf

"In summary, the current evidence does not support the idea that human addiction to sugar is a valid concept or that it is a characteristic of individuals who are obese"

So you are just disregarding the rest of the conclusions. I doubt you remember, but my reason for posting that was if possibly those with other addictions (such as alcoholics) like sugar because it hits the same sensors.

I know plenty of fat parents with skinny children and vice-versa, so you can't say that across the board either.

In all honesty, I don't know why we brought up alcoholics because they aren't the normal. I correlate that to every single thread that stats "I got my BMR tested and it's lower then expected" and then you read more and find out they have medical conditions.


The overall fact though, at this point, there is NOT enough evidence to suggest people can be physically addicted to sugar. It's more of a habitual/self control issue.

And what I merely meant when I stated " Just like the reason why children become fat when both parents are fat... they form unhealthy habits. ", it's because they learned bad habits while they were young. This does NOT mean that it applies to everyone, because I also know a lot of skinny kids with fat parents.

HappyStack

I'm not sure you can say starches and simple sugars are the same simply because they are both saccharides.

So I guess if we want to be really, really specific my personal diet is that I like to eat foods that aren't high in simple sugars. When I do consume foods high in simple sugars (e.g. fruit) I like to choose ones that have fiber and other nutritional benefits (like fruit).

Starch is just glucose in a long chain. It's a polysaccharide. Apple skins are polysaccharides.

psuLemon

I can't believe I read all 20 pages of this and no one posted the below study. My head seriously hurts from it, :laugh:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20056521

Conclusion: There is no support from the human literature for the hypothesis that sucrose may be physically addictive or that addiction to sugar plays a role in eating disorders.

So it goes back to a handful of people say, it's a habit. Just like the reason why children become fat when both parents are fat... they form unhealthy habits.


http://www.wsro.org/Portals/12/Docs/position-statement-sugar-and-addiction-2012.pdf

"In summary, the current evidence does not support the idea that human addiction to sugar is a valid concept or that it is a characteristic of individuals who are obese"

While the first study is certainly valid, the second one is literally a position paper from the sugar industry.

I can give you that. When I get a bit more time, I will go through their references and provide updates.

parkscs

Why are any of those things unhealthy though?

I can give you many, many reasons why consuming certain things are healthy or inconsequential to health. Including alcohol. I've yet to see anybody give a legitimate reason for why anything, in moderation, is unhealthy.

Again, because I think in the vast majority of situations, people are consuming these products in detriment to their health. You can come up with theoretical hypos that involve people already hitting their macro and micronutrients for the day and then opt to have a can of cola, but that's not a very realistic hypo for the vast majority of people. Even amongst people that maintain a food log, it's pretty difficult to get all of your nutrients every day and most people don't even bother keeping track. Add to that, only a small minority of people bother to keep a food log in the first place. Given this, for the vast majority of people, they're better off getting additional nutrients from a fruit or a vegetable than having something like, say, a Coke.

So at the end of the day, I would call these foods generally unhealthy, because most people are going to be making some sort of sacrifice when they consume these foods, either in terms of macro/micronutrients or in terms of calories. It doesn't mean you can't fit them into an overall healthy diet, but realistically most people would be better off making different choices and consuming these foods sparingly at best.

rejectuf

Why are any of those things unhealthy though?

I can give you many, many reasons why consuming certain things are healthy or inconsequential to health. Including alcohol. I've yet to see anybody give a legitimate reason for why anything, in moderation, is unhealthy.

Again, all food choices are relative. A piece of fruit is, in most daily circumstances, a healthier choice than a slice of cake. This does not rule out situations in which a piece of cake is an allowable addition to your food intake.

jonnythan

A piece of fruit is, in most daily circumstances, a healthier choice than a slice of cake.

So does that mean fruit is healthier than cake?

rejectuf

I'm not sure you can say starches and simple sugars are the same simply because they are both saccharides.

So I guess if we want to be really, really specific my personal diet is that I like to eat foods that aren't high in simple sugars. When I do consume foods high in simple sugars (e.g. fruit) I like to choose ones that have fiber and other nutritional benefits (like fruit).

Starch is just glucose in a long chain. It's a polysaccharide. Apple skins are polysaccharides.

As I said, I recognize starches are saccharides. But as I said, simple sugars (monosaccharides and disaccharides) are different. Your body reacts differently to them during the digestion process as simple sugars take a shorter time to become glucose and prompt a reaction from your body.

parkscs

A piece of fruit is, in most daily circumstances, a healthier choice than a slice of cake.

So does that mean fruit is healthier than cake?

As a general matter, and for the majority of people and situations? Yes. Perhaps we can just agree to put an asterisk next to "healthier" with this as a footnote?

rejectuf

A piece of fruit is, in most daily circumstances, a healthier choice than a slice of cake.

So does that mean fruit is healthier than cake?

In most scenarios, especially in the context of the original topic of this thread, people struggling with controlling their eating habits in regards to sweets, yes. In those scenarios the fruit is healthier.

jonnythan

piece of fruit is, in most daily circumstances, a healthier choice than a slice of cake.

So does that mean fruit is healthier than cake?

As a general matter, and for the majority of people and situations? Yes. Perhaps we can just agree to put an asterisk next to "healthier" with this as a footnote?

So would you support the sentence: "A piece of cake or cookie is 100% perfectly healthy provided that the consumption of said cake or cookie does not prevent you from reaching that day's nutritional goals"?

HappyStack

Again, because I think in the vast majority of situations, people are consuming these products in detriment to their health. You can come up with theoretical hypos that involve people already hitting their macro and micronutrients for the day and then opt to have a can of cola, but that's not a very realistic hypo for the vast majority of people. Even amongst people that maintain a food log, it's pretty difficult to get all of your nutrients every day and most people don't even bother keeping track. Add to that, only a small minority of people bother to keep a food log in the first place. Given this, for the vast majority of people, they're better off getting additional nutrients from a fruit or a vegetable than having something like, say, a Coke.

So at the end of the day, I would call these foods generally unhealthy, because most people are going to be making some sort of sacrifice when they consume these foods, either in terms of macro/micronutrients or in terms of calories. It doesn't mean you can't fit them into an overall healthy diet, but realistically most people would be better off making different choices and consuming these foods sparingly at best.

So your basic answer is "overconsumption", yes? let's leave out the fact that some people, especially those not logging here, eat a lot of calorie dense and less nutritionally dense food, because that's not who we're addressing. We're addressing the people who come here specifically to lose weight, gain a healthy respect for food, and become more healthy. The people who would be reading things like, "sugar is bad for you" or whatever.

So, too much alcohol, too much [full-fat] Coke, too much cake? etc.

What about too many eggs, oils, or fish? i.e. too many O6s in relation to O3s?
Too much iron? i.e. haemochromatosis?
Too much vitamin A? i.e. a greater risk of osteoporosis, decreased liver function, etc.?
Too much vitamin C? i.e. hair loss, kidney stones?

They're all unhealthy when overconsumed. "Additional nutrients" are not always beneficial when you're not assessing your overall intake carefully, either.

auntiebabs

I have battled sweets all my life. It wasn't so bad when I was in my teens and eating a bag of oreos because I was skinny!! Now I'm FAT. 5'3 and 185lbs AND almost 50! I am a sugar-aholic. I love cookies, donuts, cakes, brownies, not just one piece and walk happily away either. I have to eat it until they are done.

I am worse now than I have ever been. Being a stress eater doesn't help since my job is very stressful and there is crap to eat everywhere!!

I've tried just limiting myself to a "serving" so I get my sweets without feeling deprived but it never seems to work.

Do I quit cold turkey?? Is this to be looked at as any other addiction?

Thank you all in advance.

Over 20 years a go I went to a nutritionist who told me that SUGAR AND ARTIFICIAL SWEETENERS increase your appetite. The sugar thing I figured out (I was working on the M&M/Mars account working late, I grab a snickers for dinner and become ravenous) What stunned me was the ARTIFICIAL SWEETENERS. Anyway, these can send you into the more you have the more you want cycle.

Think about going cold turkey for 3 weeks.
Then see what you can add back at a reasonable level... You'll find somethings are trigger foods and somethings are more manageable.

The more you increase your nutrition and the more you decrease your sweets, the fewer cravings you will have.
Hunger is your body telling you it needs nutrition. If you eat empty calories you'll just want more. If you eat food packed with nutrition it takes fewer calories to feel full.

In the meanwhile...
Keep an eagle eye out for hidden sugars
Almost all food manufacturers add sweeteners of some sort to things that once fell into the "real food" category. Food has changed a lot over the past 30 years. It really shocked me that so much of what I thought of as healthy really no longer was. It's a win-win for the food manufacturers, the more they can spur your appetite, the more you buy.

I'm no angel I LOVE MY COOKIES!!!!!
I have a sweet tooth, if I am going to eat sugar I want it to be a cookie or a treat, not tomato sauce, or yogurt, or a lean cuisine.
(FYI my favorite cookies have 9g sugar for 15 cookies, I looked at the pasta sauce I was using to find that it had 9g of sugar for one 1/2 cup serving.--- so i decided to switch back to plain old tomato sauce and added my own spices, only to find that many brands added HFCS. Red pack was the only brand on my supermarket shelf that did NOT have added sugar.)

Remember...
Sugars (and sweeteners) go by many, many names
Pretty much anything that ends in an OSE is a sugar. But sugar goes by lots and lots of names like...
Sucrose, Sucralose, Glucose, Dextrose, Maltose, Lactose, Xylose, Cellulose, Methylcellulose, Fructose (the infamous High Fructose Corn Syrup), Regular old Corn Syrup, Corn Sugars, Maltodextrin, Molasses, Sorgham, Agave, Honey, Malt Syrup, Amazake, Inulin, Isomalt, Glycerin, Invert Sugar, and of course Sugar, just to name a few
(Aspartame, Saccharin, Stevia, Neotame, Acesulfame Potassium, Sorbitol and Xylitol, Lactitol, Mannitol)

Hope I haven't gotten to food zealot-y.
It's just that it made a huge difference in how I feel and I want everyone to feel better.

rejectuf

piece of fruit is, in most daily circumstances, a healthier choice than a slice of cake.

So does that mean fruit is healthier than cake?

As a general matter, and for the majority of people and situations? Yes. Perhaps we can just agree to put an asterisk next to "healthier" with this as a footnote?

So would you support the sentence: "A piece of cake or cookie is 100% perfectly healthy provided that the consumption of said cake or cookie does not prevent you from reaching that day's nutritional goals"?

I would probably apply a disclaimer that when talking about people who have a compulsion to overindulge in cookies or cake, that it is not recommended.

For those who are able to easily control their food intake, plan out their daily requirements and meet them, then yes the occasional piece of cake or cookie can be part of a healthy diet.

jonnythan

For those who are able to easily control their food intake, plan out their daily requirements and meet them, then yes the occasional piece of cake or cookie can be part of a healthy diet.

I didn't ask about "part of a healthy diet."

I was talking about a healthy diet. You didn't want to talk about that. You wanted to qualify certain foods as "healthier" than other foods.

parkscs

So would you support the sentence: "A piece of cake or cookie is 100% perfectly healthy provided that the consumption of said cake or cookie does not prevent you from reaching that day's nutritional goals"?

Sure. But I'd recognize that for the vast majority of people in the vast majority of situations, such a statement is irrelevant. As such, defining it as healthy seems, to steal another poster's term, disingenuous, because it's an unhealthy choice in the vast majority of situations.

So your basic answer is "overconsumption", yes? let's leave out the fact that some people, especially those not logging here, eat a lot of calorie dense and less nutritionally dense food, because that's not who we're addressing. We're addressing the people who come here specifically to lose weight, gain a healthy respect for food, and become more healthy. The people who would be reading things like, "sugar is bad for you" or whatever.

I never said sugar is bad for you. I'm saying that certain choices are generally better for your health, making them healthier than other choices as a general matter. As for ignoring the majority of people who don't log their food, I see no reason to ignore them in this discussion. Something doesn't suddenly become "health food" just because you keep a food log.

Again, if you actually read what I'm saying, never did I say sugar is bad, nor have I said you can't fit foods like cake into your macros. I just think there's a middle ground between explicitly saying "cake is healthy!" and saying "cake is always unhealthy and should NEVER be consumed!" Just because you recognize some foods as generally unhealthy doesn't mean you have a "bad relationship" with food, whatever that means.

rejectuf

For those who are able to easily control their food intake, plan out their daily requirements and meet them, then yes the occasional piece of cake or cookie can be part of a healthy diet.

I didn't ask about "part of a healthy diet."

I was talking about a healthy diet. You didn't want to talk about that. You wanted to qualify certain foods as "healthier" than other foods.

I then qualified my statement by explaining my view that all foods are relative. If we were to compare them based on only nutrition, then the fruit wins. But as I explained everyone chooses foods on a variety of factors; nutrition being only one.

I will not say that a cake or cookie has more nutritional benefits than fruit; sorry. I will agree that a cake or cookie can be a part of a healthy diet when all other factors of the diet are well under control.