Need serious help with SUGAR!!!!

psuLemon

It's pretty difficult to get all the recommended amounts of vitamins and minerals from your diet each and every day[...]

No, it isn't. I've said this countless times in the last few weeks.

You should read up on fat-soluble and water-soluble vitamins and minerals as a whole.

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.

Maybe at first, but once you educate yourself on macro and micro nutrition, its not that difficult to finish each day with a klondike bar or ice cream.

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"

Cindyinpg

I can't believe I read all 20 pages of this and no one posted the below study.

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"

I went back and got this to post here, because awesome.

jonnythan

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"

Well there you go. Science!

HappyStack

It's pretty difficult to get all the recommended amounts of vitamins and minerals from your diet each and every day[...]

No, it isn't. I've said this countless times in the last few weeks.

You should read up on fat-soluble and water-soluble vitamins and minerals as a whole.

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.

parkscs

OK, let's approach this in a different way.

Say I've gotten a nutritionally balanced breakfast, lunch and dinner behind me. I'm hitting my RDIs for vitamins and minerals (maybe going a little over here and there, maybe going a little under here and there). My macros are in good order, I've eaten my daily protein goal, and I'm a little over my goal on fats and carbs, but I still have calories left.

There's a slice of cake in my fridge. There are two apples sitting beside it. I could eat the cake or the apples and not exceed my calorie goal.

Why should I reach for the apples over the slice of cake if I don't want them, all other things being equal?

I'll agree that in your theoretical situation situation it doesn't matter. But let's talk about the more likely situation for the average person. 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. Or let's take the average person who doesn't log their food, because let's be honest, we're in the minority here. What's a better snack? Cake? Or fruit? What, on average, would be the better decision? If you take the average person's diet, the fruit wins the vast majority of time - actually, it's hard to conceive of a situation where the cake would be the superior option. Even if your hypo, it's a 50/50 split.

In short, just because you can craft a theoretical situation where it doesn't matter which one you pick, doesn't mean that one isn't the better choice in the vast majority of situations.

Cindyinpg

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"

Well there you go. Science!

perseverance14

It's pretty difficult to get all the recommended amounts of vitamins and minerals from your diet each and every day[...]

No, it isn't. I've said this countless times in the last few weeks.

You should read up on fat-soluble and water-soluble vitamins and minerals as a whole.

God damn it, I rolled it.

There was that recent study (not into looking for it at the moment) that said multivitamins are not necessary, my Primary Doctor backs that one.

jonnythan

It's pretty difficult to get all the recommended amounts of vitamins and minerals from your diet each and every day[...]

No, it isn't. I've said this countless times in the last few weeks.

You should read up on fat-soluble and water-soluble vitamins and minerals as a whole.

God damn it, I rolled it.

There was that recent study (not into looking for it at the moment) that said multivitamins are not necessary, my Primary Doctor backs that one.

Who said anything about multis? Did I miss it?

HappyStack

I'll agree that in your theoretical situation situation it doesn't matter. But let's talk about the more likely situation for the average person. 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. Or let's take the average person who doesn't log their food, because let's be honest, we're in the minority here. What's a better snack? Cake? Or fruit? What, on average, would be the better decision? If you take the average person's diet, the fruit wins the vast majority of time - actually, it's hard to conceive of a situation where the cake would be the superior option. Even if your hypo, it's a 50/50 split.

In short, just because you can craft a theoretical situation where it doesn't matter which one you pick, doesn't mean that one isn't the better choice in the vast majority of situations.

If we're getting pernickety, micros and macros are generally more abundant in foods other than fruit. If I was lacking, for example, vit C (a water-soluble vitamin that we do need to consume every day) then I would eat a helping of kale or something similar over an orange.

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.