Sugar

124

Replies

  • pagmichigan
    pagmichigan Posts: 12 Member
    I completely understand that was me too...what i did (it wasn't easy at first) was get rid of all my triggers like bread, pasta and even some fruits. It took a while but now I dont have those cravings very often. I also track my sugars here and allow myself only 30 grams per day (when I work out I allow myself more for energy) Make sure you are eating every few hours to keep your blood sugar in normal range otherwise your body will crave sugar for energy.
  • timc_73
    timc_73 Posts: 6
    I'm not sure I have advice on how to fix it. I believe sugar addiction is a real thing, and I'm not sure there are many solutions besides will power and moderation.

    I truly believe that sugar (and the bigger category of carbohydrates) are a major problem affecting our health, and I think the first step to getting healthy is to cut sugar...then bread :( This has been tough for me because I really like to eat those humungous fast-food burritos...

    Good luck.
  • Tiernan1212
    Tiernan1212 Posts: 797 Member
    There are drug addicts out there and other addicts that get judged. BUt there are things out there that are just as addictive and dangerous to a persons body. through this journey I have come to realize one major thing. I have a huge huge addiction to sugar. Anyone else have this problem or had it and can give advice on how to fix it. I will admit I am addicted to it and as hard as i try i cannot seem to get over it.

    A bit harsh to not want to offer the OP support or sympathy because of a tenuous statement.

    My personal belief is a lot of non(hardcore)drugs and other things can be addictive.

    For the person suffering that addiction, they may feel that comparison to be true. Rather than give the standard response.


    Why don't we see if we can get to the cause and actually help the person. After all isn't that what we are on this forum for?

    Just saying.

    Its hard to help the OP unless she clearly defines her issue. If a person comes in saying they might have a binge disorder, we recommend getting professional help, not just forum help. If this OP is really addicted to sugar, it would be suggested to get professional help. If she realizes that she binges when there are cookies in the house, then we will tell her not to keep them in the house. Essentially, different diagnosis have different courses of action.

    I have completely agreed with everything you have said in this thread, thank you! :flowerforyou:

    For the most part, I have no issue with people claiming food addiction in general. I battle with binge issues, so I understand the cumpulsion to mindlessly consume mass amounts of food. This isn't anything that anyone on the forums can help me with, I need to work with a professional therapist to figure that out myself.

    Where I start to have a problem is when people single out a single food item and call it an addiction. If someone were truly addicted to only sugar, they would be eating sugar out of a bag by the cupful, not eating an entire box of donuts or cookies. In my opinion, most people claiming sugar addiction are actually "addicted" to hyperpalatable foods, like stated above (or earlier in the thread, I can't remember). And as a recovered drug addict and someone who has an alcoholic ex, I get very upset when someone compares sugar addiction to drug or alcohol addiction, especially when claiming sugar damages the body the same way. Not. Even. Close.
  • RGv2
    RGv2 Posts: 5,789 Member
    Not worth it.
  • gypsy_spirit
    gypsy_spirit Posts: 2,107 Member
    There are drug addicts out there and other addicts that get judged. BUt there are things out there that are just as addictive and dangerous to a persons body. through this journey I have come to realize one major thing. I have a huge huge addiction to sugar. Anyone else have this problem or had it and can give advice on how to fix it. I will admit I am addicted to it and as hard as i try i cannot seem to get over it.

    A bit harsh to not want to offer the OP support or sympathy because of a tenuous statement.

    My personal belief is a lot of non(hardcore)drugs and other things can be addictive.

    For the person suffering that addiction, they may feel that comparison to be true. Rather than give the standard response.


    Why don't we see if we can get to the cause and actually help the person. After all isn't that what we are on this forum for?

    Just saying.

    Its hard to help the OP unless she clearly defines her issue. If a person comes in saying they might have a binge disorder, we recommend getting professional help, not just forum help. If this OP is really addicted to sugar, it would be suggested to get professional help. If she realizes that she binges when there are cookies in the house, then we will tell her not to keep them in the house. Essentially, different diagnosis have different courses of action.

    I have completely agreed with everything you have said in this thread, thank you! :flowerforyou:

    For the most part, I have no issue with people claiming food addiction in general. I battle with binge issues, so I understand the cumpulsion to mindlessly consume mass amounts of food. This isn't anything that anyone on the forums can help me with, I need to work with a professional therapist to figure that out myself.

    Where I start to have a problem is when people single out a single food item and call it an addiction. If someone were truly addicted to only sugar, they would be eating sugar out of a bag by the cupful, not eating an entire box of donuts or cookies. In my opinion, most people claiming sugar addiction are actually "addicted" to hyperpalatable foods, like stated above (or earlier in the thread, I can't remember). And as a recovered drug addict and someone who has an alcoholic ex, I get very upset when someone compares sugar addiction to drug or alcohol addiction, especially when claiming sugar damages the body the same way. Not. Even. Close.

    This is my feeling as well. I love sugar. But I can let myself overeat on all types of foods - including sugary treats. Your words are what we needed to put this into perspective. An addiction is a crippling thing to those caught in it's grasp. To compare overeating of sugar to true addiction is quite a reach. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    Where I start to have a problem is when people single out a single food item and call it an addiction. If someone were truly addicted to only sugar, they would be eating sugar out of a bag by the cupful, not eating an entire box of donuts or cookies. In my opinion, most people claiming sugar addiction are actually "addicted" to hyperpalatable foods, like stated above (or earlier in the thread, I can't remember).

    I don't understand this train of thought. Isn't it a bit like saying "If they were really an alcoholic they'd be drinking bottle after bottle of grain alcohol, not whiskey or beer"? Or, "If they were really addicted to tobacco or nicotine, they'd be chewing nicotine gum non-stop, not smoking"?

    All alcoholics don't drink constantly and many have drink preferences based on taste. Same with tobacco addiction.
  • tigersword
    tigersword Posts: 8,059 Member
    Yep, I am 100% addicted to sugar without any question in my mind. It has similar dopamine response when ingested the same type of response from doing narcotics.

    A great documentary is Sugar: The Bitter Truth, one of the greatest 45 minutes you'll spend watching a video!

    If I had an option between unlimited access to the Mcdonalds/Wendy's Menu or the 7-11 Candy aisle I'd take the candy aisle any day. :indifferent:
    Actually, Sugar: The Bitter Truth has been thoroughly debunked as the junk science that it is.

    http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/
  • kstand0053
    kstand0053 Posts: 15 Member
    Ok, so I will offer some actually advice on this subject. When I feel a craving coming on, (because I do NOT feel like I am an ADDICT for sugar, but I do get CRAZY cravings, and I think alot of PMSing women can relate) I look for alternatives, BEST advice you will get on the CURVES complete program! Instead of a Phillsbury chocolate chip cookie, I have a Kashi dark chcolate oatmeal cookie-WAY better for you. Instead of some Diary Queen Ice cream I have Skinny Cow Ice Cream! I find there is always an alternative!!!!
    Brownie: Fiber one
    Chcolate: 2 dark dove squares
    Go crazy and add some peanut butter.
    I trick my brain into thinking I am letting it have what crummy food I am craving! Seems like it might work for an "addiction"
    But what do I know! I am just a regular joe who has lost 30lbs since Oct.
  • tigersword
    tigersword Posts: 8,059 Member
    Where I start to have a problem is when people single out a single food item and call it an addiction. If someone were truly addicted to only sugar, they would be eating sugar out of a bag by the cupful, not eating an entire box of donuts or cookies. In my opinion, most people claiming sugar addiction are actually "addicted" to hyperpalatable foods, like stated above (or earlier in the thread, I can't remember).

    I don't understand this train of thought. Isn't it a bit like saying "If they were really an alcoholic they'd be drinking bottle after bottle of grain alcohol, not whiskey or beer"? Or, "If they were really addicted to tobacco or nicotine, they'd be chewing nicotine gum non-stop, not smoking"?

    All alcoholics don't drink constantly and many have drink preferences based on taste. Same with tobacco addiction.
    Actually, many smokers end up getting just as addicted to the nicotine gum as they were to cigarettes.

    It's simple, if someone was addicted to sugar, they would be equally likely to binge and lose control from eating an apple as they would a candy bar. In fact, the average apple has about the same amount of sugar as the average candy bar.

    So saying you're addicted to sugar because you can't eat a cookie without eating the whole box, but eating an apple is just fine, is completely bogus and disingenuous.

    An alcoholic may have a drink of choice, but that doesn't mean that they can suddenly control themselves when they drink something different. It doesn't work that way.
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    Where I start to have a problem is when people single out a single food item and call it an addiction. If someone were truly addicted to only sugar, they would be eating sugar out of a bag by the cupful, not eating an entire box of donuts or cookies. In my opinion, most people claiming sugar addiction are actually "addicted" to hyperpalatable foods, like stated above (or earlier in the thread, I can't remember).

    I don't understand this train of thought. Isn't it a bit like saying "If they were really an alcoholic they'd be drinking bottle after bottle of grain alcohol, not whiskey or beer"? Or, "If they were really addicted to tobacco or nicotine, they'd be chewing nicotine gum non-stop, not smoking"?

    All alcoholics don't drink constantly and many have drink preferences based on taste. Same with tobacco addiction.
    Actually, many smokers end up getting just as addicted to the nicotine gum as they were to cigarettes.

    It's simple, if someone was addicted to sugar, they would be equally likely to binge and lose control from eating an apple as they would a candy bar. In fact, the average apple has about the same amount of sugar as the average candy bar.

    I agree with the first sentence, though don't see how it is applicable to my point.

    The second paragraph doesn't make sense to me. First off sugar, as in the crystalized processed stuff most often used to make candy and baked goods, is not the same as the sugar in an apple. The same things don't happen to the body during digestion.

    And you rarely get the same things along with the sugar in a candy bar as you do in an apple, like fiber.
  • somefitsomefat
    somefitsomefat Posts: 445 Member
    We need food to live, we don't need drugs or alcohol. Food addiction is becoming an excuse, you will always need to consume food. Therefore, you're going to HAVE to develop some form of self-control and self-regulate intake. Food man, you can't escape it

    Unless...photosynthesis. Plants know where it's at.

    That reminds me, I heard of a small cult of people who insist they can live off sunlight and air alone

    Models?
  • Acg67
    Acg67 Posts: 12,142 Member
    Where I start to have a problem is when people single out a single food item and call it an addiction. If someone were truly addicted to only sugar, they would be eating sugar out of a bag by the cupful, not eating an entire box of donuts or cookies. In my opinion, most people claiming sugar addiction are actually "addicted" to hyperpalatable foods, like stated above (or earlier in the thread, I can't remember).

    I don't understand this train of thought. Isn't it a bit like saying "If they were really an alcoholic they'd be drinking bottle after bottle of grain alcohol, not whiskey or beer"? Or, "If they were really addicted to tobacco or nicotine, they'd be chewing nicotine gum non-stop, not smoking"?

    All alcoholics don't drink constantly and many have drink preferences based on taste. Same with tobacco addiction.
    Actually, many smokers end up getting just as addicted to the nicotine gum as they were to cigarettes.

    It's simple, if someone was addicted to sugar, they would be equally likely to binge and lose control from eating an apple as they would a candy bar. In fact, the average apple has about the same amount of sugar as the average candy bar.

    I agree with the first sentence, though don't see how it is applicable to my point.

    The second paragraph doesn't make sense to me. First off sugar, as in the crystalized processed stuff most often used to make candy and baked goods, is not the same as the sugar in an apple. The same things don't happen to the body during digestion.

    And you rarely get the same things along with the sugar in a candy bar as you do in an apple, like fiber.

    Not the same sugar? Sucrose for baking and sucrose in apples are different?
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    An alcoholic may have a drink of choice, but that doesn't mean that they can suddenly control themselves when they drink something different. It doesn't work that way.

    Sometimes it does. Depends on the level of addiction.
  • gismar68
    gismar68 Posts: 2
    I have a big problem with sugar. Not so much candies or sweets but love my sugar in my coffee and of course love love my coffee.
    Have been trying to cut down and have so in the past when I lost weight right away and quickly. Now I am on that journey again as I gained weight back, probably due to my quitting smoking this past November. I am not a soda fan or coke drinker so it's mostly the plain granulated sugar in my coffee or tea.
  • tigersword
    tigersword Posts: 8,059 Member
    Where I start to have a problem is when people single out a single food item and call it an addiction. If someone were truly addicted to only sugar, they would be eating sugar out of a bag by the cupful, not eating an entire box of donuts or cookies. In my opinion, most people claiming sugar addiction are actually "addicted" to hyperpalatable foods, like stated above (or earlier in the thread, I can't remember).

    I don't understand this train of thought. Isn't it a bit like saying "If they were really an alcoholic they'd be drinking bottle after bottle of grain alcohol, not whiskey or beer"? Or, "If they were really addicted to tobacco or nicotine, they'd be chewing nicotine gum non-stop, not smoking"?

    All alcoholics don't drink constantly and many have drink preferences based on taste. Same with tobacco addiction.
    Actually, many smokers end up getting just as addicted to the nicotine gum as they were to cigarettes.

    It's simple, if someone was addicted to sugar, they would be equally likely to binge and lose control from eating an apple as they would a candy bar. In fact, the average apple has about the same amount of sugar as the average candy bar.

    I agree with the first sentence, though don't see how it is applicable to my point.

    The second paragraph doesn't make sense to me. First off sugar, as in the crystalized processed stuff most often used to make candy and baked goods, is not the same as the sugar in an apple. The same things don't happen to the body during digestion.

    And you rarely get the same things along with the sugar in a candy bar as you do in an apple, like fiber.
    Actually, the sucrose in table sugar is EXACTLY the same as the sucrose in an apple. Sucrose is very easily digested by the body, the human body even has an enzyme, sucrase, with the sole purpose of splitting a sucrose molecule into glucose and fructose.

    And plenty of candy bars have fiber, as do plenty of baked goods. And even the ones that don't, usually have fat instead, and fat performs the same function as fiber when it comes to rate of sugar absorption.
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    Where I start to have a problem is when people single out a single food item and call it an addiction. If someone were truly addicted to only sugar, they would be eating sugar out of a bag by the cupful, not eating an entire box of donuts or cookies. In my opinion, most people claiming sugar addiction are actually "addicted" to hyperpalatable foods, like stated above (or earlier in the thread, I can't remember).

    I don't understand this train of thought. Isn't it a bit like saying "If they were really an alcoholic they'd be drinking bottle after bottle of grain alcohol, not whiskey or beer"? Or, "If they were really addicted to tobacco or nicotine, they'd be chewing nicotine gum non-stop, not smoking"?

    All alcoholics don't drink constantly and many have drink preferences based on taste. Same with tobacco addiction.
    Actually, many smokers end up getting just as addicted to the nicotine gum as they were to cigarettes.

    It's simple, if someone was addicted to sugar, they would be equally likely to binge and lose control from eating an apple as they would a candy bar. In fact, the average apple has about the same amount of sugar as the average candy bar.

    I agree with the first sentence, though don't see how it is applicable to my point.

    The second paragraph doesn't make sense to me. First off sugar, as in the crystalized processed stuff most often used to make candy and baked goods, is not the same as the sugar in an apple. The same things don't happen to the body during digestion.

    And you rarely get the same things along with the sugar in a candy bar as you do in an apple, like fiber.

    Not the same sugar? Sucrose for baking and sucrose in apples are different?

    Yes, the sugar in apples is not purely sucrose.
  • tigersword
    tigersword Posts: 8,059 Member
    Where I start to have a problem is when people single out a single food item and call it an addiction. If someone were truly addicted to only sugar, they would be eating sugar out of a bag by the cupful, not eating an entire box of donuts or cookies. In my opinion, most people claiming sugar addiction are actually "addicted" to hyperpalatable foods, like stated above (or earlier in the thread, I can't remember).

    I don't understand this train of thought. Isn't it a bit like saying "If they were really an alcoholic they'd be drinking bottle after bottle of grain alcohol, not whiskey or beer"? Or, "If they were really addicted to tobacco or nicotine, they'd be chewing nicotine gum non-stop, not smoking"?

    All alcoholics don't drink constantly and many have drink preferences based on taste. Same with tobacco addiction.
    Actually, many smokers end up getting just as addicted to the nicotine gum as they were to cigarettes.

    It's simple, if someone was addicted to sugar, they would be equally likely to binge and lose control from eating an apple as they would a candy bar. In fact, the average apple has about the same amount of sugar as the average candy bar.

    I agree with the first sentence, though don't see how it is applicable to my point.

    The second paragraph doesn't make sense to me. First off sugar, as in the crystalized processed stuff most often used to make candy and baked goods, is not the same as the sugar in an apple. The same things don't happen to the body during digestion.

    And you rarely get the same things along with the sugar in a candy bar as you do in an apple, like fiber.

    Not the same sugar? Sucrose for baking and sucrose in apples are different?

    Yes, the sugar in apples is not purely sucrose.
    Yep there's glucose and fructose in there as well. And sucrose gets split by sucrase (an instantaneous process) and becomes... Glucose and fructose. And then the body digests it all in the exact same manner.
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    Where I start to have a problem is when people single out a single food item and call it an addiction. If someone were truly addicted to only sugar, they would be eating sugar out of a bag by the cupful, not eating an entire box of donuts or cookies. In my opinion, most people claiming sugar addiction are actually "addicted" to hyperpalatable foods, like stated above (or earlier in the thread, I can't remember).

    I don't understand this train of thought. Isn't it a bit like saying "If they were really an alcoholic they'd be drinking bottle after bottle of grain alcohol, not whiskey or beer"? Or, "If they were really addicted to tobacco or nicotine, they'd be chewing nicotine gum non-stop, not smoking"?

    All alcoholics don't drink constantly and many have drink preferences based on taste. Same with tobacco addiction.
    Actually, many smokers end up getting just as addicted to the nicotine gum as they were to cigarettes.

    It's simple, if someone was addicted to sugar, they would be equally likely to binge and lose control from eating an apple as they would a candy bar. In fact, the average apple has about the same amount of sugar as the average candy bar.

    I agree with the first sentence, though don't see how it is applicable to my point.

    The second paragraph doesn't make sense to me. First off sugar, as in the crystalized processed stuff most often used to make candy and baked goods, is not the same as the sugar in an apple. The same things don't happen to the body during digestion.

    And you rarely get the same things along with the sugar in a candy bar as you do in an apple, like fiber.
    Actually, the sucrose in table sugar is EXACTLY the same as the sucrose in an apple. Sucrose is very easily digested by the body, the human body even has an enzyme, sucrase, with the sole purpose of splitting a sucrose molecule into glucose and fructose.

    And plenty of candy bars have fiber, as do plenty of baked goods. And even the ones that don't, usually have fat instead, and fat performs the same function as fiber when it comes to rate of sugar absorption.

    So, are you saying if I eat 100 g of table sugar and 100 g of apple, there will be absolutely no difference whatsoever in my body reactions during digestion?
  • Maggie_Pie1
    Maggie_Pie1 Posts: 322 Member
    So saying you're addicted to sugar because you can't eat a cookie without eating the whole box, but eating an apple is just fine, is completely bogus and disingenuous.

    Just a thought - but maybe it has more to do with the concentration of sugar in the food, or the fact that there IS fiber in the apple to help slow things down as far as how fast it gets absorbed? I don't know. I don't know if I believe sugar is a physical addiction or psychological one, but I do recognize that my body reacts differently to the sugar in an apple vs. the sugar in a cookie. Not in a good way, by any means, but I don't think it's as simple as 'sugar is sugar'.
  • Maggie_Pie1
    Maggie_Pie1 Posts: 322 Member
    Actually, the sucrose in table sugar is EXACTLY the same as the sucrose in an apple.

    i think it's actually fructose, not sucrose, in an apple.
  • Acg67
    Acg67 Posts: 12,142 Member
    Actually, the sucrose in table sugar is EXACTLY the same as the sucrose in an apple.

    i think it's actually fructose, not sucrose, in an apple.

    It contains mult sugars, it is usually the ignorant who beleive that fruits only contain fructose. Not saying you're ignorant though

    http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/2200?fg=&man=&lfacet=&count=&max=25&sort=&qlookup=apple&offset=&format=Full&new=&measureby=
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    So saying you're addicted to sugar because you can't eat a cookie without eating the whole box, but eating an apple is just fine, is completely bogus and disingenuous.

    Just a thought - but maybe it has more to do with the concentration of sugar in the food, or the fact that there IS fiber in the apple to help slow things down as far as how fast it gets absorbed? I don't know. I don't know if I believe sugar is a physical addiction or psychological one, but I do recognize that my body reacts differently to the sugar in an apple vs. the sugar in a cookie. Not in a good way, by any means, but I don't think it's as simple as 'sugar is sugar'.

    Of course it reacts differently. Everyone's body does. It's exactly why foods with fiber and protein are more satiating. Your body will reacte differently to the same sugar if it's eaten alone or roasted onto on almond.
  • J72FIT
    J72FIT Posts: 6,008 Member
    First off sugar, as in the crystalized processed stuff most often used to make candy and baked goods, is not the same as the sugar in an apple.

    It is the same stuff and it is digested the same way except for this, the fiber in the apple allows the sugar to be digested more slowly. The sugar in the apple is no more healthy then the sugar in candy or baked goods. The apple is nutrient dense, baked goods are calorie dense...
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    First off sugar, as in the crystalized processed stuff most often used to make candy and baked goods, is not the same as the sugar in an apple.

    It is the same stuff and it is digested the same way except for this, the fiber in the apple allows the sugar to be digested more slowly. The sugar in the apple is no more healthy then the sugar in candy or baked goods. The apple is nutrient dense, baked goods are calorie dense...

    :laugh: I guess we just differ on the meaning of "same" then, because those sound like differences to me.
  • tigersword
    tigersword Posts: 8,059 Member
    Where I start to have a problem is when people single out a single food item and call it an addiction. If someone were truly addicted to only sugar, they would be eating sugar out of a bag by the cupful, not eating an entire box of donuts or cookies. In my opinion, most people claiming sugar addiction are actually "addicted" to hyperpalatable foods, like stated above (or earlier in the thread, I can't remember).

    I don't understand this train of thought. Isn't it a bit like saying "If they were really an alcoholic they'd be drinking bottle after bottle of grain alcohol, not whiskey or beer"? Or, "If they were really addicted to tobacco or nicotine, they'd be chewing nicotine gum non-stop, not smoking"?

    All alcoholics don't drink constantly and many have drink preferences based on taste. Same with tobacco addiction.
    Actually, many smokers end up getting just as addicted to the nicotine gum as they were to cigarettes.

    It's simple, if someone was addicted to sugar, they would be equally likely to binge and lose control from eating an apple as they would a candy bar. In fact, the average apple has about the same amount of sugar as the average candy bar.

    I agree with the first sentence, though don't see how it is applicable to my point.

    The second paragraph doesn't make sense to me. First off sugar, as in the crystalized processed stuff most often used to make candy and baked goods, is not the same as the sugar in an apple. The same things don't happen to the body during digestion.

    And you rarely get the same things along with the sugar in a candy bar as you do in an apple, like fiber.
    Actually, the sucrose in table sugar is EXACTLY the same as the sucrose in an apple. Sucrose is very easily digested by the body, the human body even has an enzyme, sucrase, with the sole purpose of splitting a sucrose molecule into glucose and fructose.

    And plenty of candy bars have fiber, as do plenty of baked goods. And even the ones that don't, usually have fat instead, and fat performs the same function as fiber when it comes to rate of sugar absorption.

    So, are you saying if I eat 100 g of table sugar and 100 g of apple, there will be absolutely no difference whatsoever in my body reactions during digestion?
    Huh? Well that's a completely ignorant comparison. No. If you ate 100g of table sugar, and the EQUIVALENT of 100g of apple sugar, (or about 5 apples) then no, there will be no difference in how the body digests the sugars.
  • PoesyP
    PoesyP Posts: 37 Member
    I can't be bothered to get involved in the argument, but if you really want to cut down on sweet foods, the advice I followed was to restrict nothing else while you do it. This works because when you go from eating lots of sugar to no sugar you get really hungry - physically as well as sweet cravings so you need to kind of eat your way through that phase. I got quite bad headaches during this time, but stuck with it. Obviously that really means sticking to pretty unprocessed foods - you need to be making sure that you aren't eating savoury foods that have lots of hidden sugars and things like that. I found it took about 10 days to 2 weeks to get that kind of withdrawal phase out of my system. Then you can go back to your normal eating plan. I found once you go really cold turkey on all sugars, then you stop craving sugar so it becomes really easy to stick to low sugar eating after that.
  • MarucaSoledad
    MarucaSoledad Posts: 11 Member
    Completely agree with Caitep. If the goal is to eliminate or avoid the use of sugar it's important not to sabotage yourself by trying to stop many other things at the same time. Also, besides the purely physical, it might be worth looking into why you feel out of control (which is an emotional things) when you eat it. If you feel it is a fair comparison to an addiction, then there must be a feeling or feelings you are trying to avoid by consuming all the sugar. I have found it difficult, as so many things turn into sugar once you eat them. I'm not an expert, but I have read that processed-flour products (bread, crackers, etc) have the same effect on the body and will make getting over the sugar cravings very difficult. Hope it all works out well for you!!
  • Sugabug75
    Sugabug75 Posts: 7 Member
    Refined sugar is bad for you, however, some natural sugar is necessary.
    In trying to eliminate refined sugar this week (including fruits) and, missed a whole day of work.
    Two days ago, I was fatigued and cranky. Yesterday morning, I was panting, feeling overheated and, faint.
    I had allowed my blood sugar to get too low.
    I didn't feel normal again until hours later after drinking apple and orange juices.

    It's good to cut out the sugar, just make sure it's the right kind.

    You can check out various Diabetes websites to see a listing of fruits that have enough just sugar to keep you balanced.

    Try grapefruit!

    Just like the posters said above, become a label reader you'd be surprised; very many of the packaged products you eat, even the ones that are not sweet, do contain sugar. Try to stick to whole foods.
    You'll go through a withdrawal but, at the end of two weeks, your cravings will not be quite as strong.
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    Where I start to have a problem is when people single out a single food item and call it an addiction. If someone were truly addicted to only sugar, they would be eating sugar out of a bag by the cupful, not eating an entire box of donuts or cookies. In my opinion, most people claiming sugar addiction are actually "addicted" to hyperpalatable foods, like stated above (or earlier in the thread, I can't remember).

    I don't understand this train of thought. Isn't it a bit like saying "If they were really an alcoholic they'd be drinking bottle after bottle of grain alcohol, not whiskey or beer"? Or, "If they were really addicted to tobacco or nicotine, they'd be chewing nicotine gum non-stop, not smoking"?

    All alcoholics don't drink constantly and many have drink preferences based on taste. Same with tobacco addiction.
    Actually, many smokers end up getting just as addicted to the nicotine gum as they were to cigarettes.

    It's simple, if someone was addicted to sugar, they would be equally likely to binge and lose control from eating an apple as they would a candy bar. In fact, the average apple has about the same amount of sugar as the average candy bar.

    I agree with the first sentence, though don't see how it is applicable to my point.

    The second paragraph doesn't make sense to me. First off sugar, as in the crystalized processed stuff most often used to make candy and baked goods, is not the same as the sugar in an apple. The same things don't happen to the body during digestion.

    And you rarely get the same things along with the sugar in a candy bar as you do in an apple, like fiber.

    so if i add fiber to my alcohol it makes it "good"…?
  • FredDoyle
    FredDoyle Posts: 2,272 Member
    Trust me, it's not the same. Refined sugar is bad for you, however, some natural sugar is necessary.
    I say this because, in trying to eliminate sugar this week (including fruits) and, missed a whole day of work.
    Two days ago, I was fatigued and cranky the night before. Yesterday morning, I was panting, feeling overheated and, faint.
    I had allowed my blood sugar to get too low.
    I didn't feel normal again until hours later after drinking apple and orange juices.

    It's good to cut out the sugar, just make sure it's the right kind.
    This is an absurd conclusion. You cut out all sugar, felt like crap and felt better after you drank sugar water? :yawn:

Categories