cut the SUGAR out

rebalee8

I never once claimed to be the arbiter of what is rational for other people.

No, but you set yourself up to be in that position.

I merely said that irrational food restrictions are a main characteristic of orthorexia nervosa (and binge eating/anorexia). That is simply a fact. If someone has a logical and reasonable reason for cutting out a wide swath of foods, they clearly wouldn't fall into that category.

They may be, but generally internet message boards are not conducive to these diagnoses. Further, you keep going back to "if they have irrational"... well, you wouldn't know that unless you interrogate their reasoning, which is what I mean by you've set yourself up as arbiter of what's rational for others. I find the whole idea that you think someone should justify their reasoning to you problematic to begin with.

I then went on to use an example that if the reason people have been cutting out sugar is because of information from Lustig or Joanne - then indeed they ARE being irrational. Regardless of their history and what is in their head - if their reasoning is "Lustig said, or Joanne said..." then they are being irrational. That would lack both reason and logic...thus irrational. I didn't invent the word.

Unless they start out sharing this (in which case, they're likely advocating, not just talking about their own experience), how would you know this unless you interrogated their reasoning? And who are you to do that? As I keep saying, it's one thing if they're asking for advice/help, but quite another to challenge someone who's not asking for it when they're just sharing what they do/what works for them.

And I see NO problem with sharing information on a message board that could potentially help someone. Whether they asked for it or not. If someone came in here on a Very Low calorie diet, or some crazy pill fueled diet that "worked for them" would you not expect people to speak up on the potential dangers? Why shouldn't the same hold true for restrictive diets?

I think a lot of it depends on how you do it. Sharing your opinion is different than saying someone who is just sharing that they focus on eating fruit instead of cakes and cookies "you know your body treats the sugar in that apple and the sugar in a piece of cake the same" (this is how I got into this thread in the first place). For one thing, that's not exactly true. Your body doesn't process an apple and a piece of cake the same. In isolation, yes, sugar is sugar, but an apple and cake are not the same to your body when you start looking at glucose and insulin levels. And this is important to some people, generally for medical reasons, but not always.

And the VLCD and pills comment is, in this case, a non sequitur. Yes of course, if someone is doing something harmful, then you should intervene, but we've already established that cutting sugar is not harmful. It's just not in the same category.

I am not working against any "fad" people. When I see a topic that I feel knowledgeable about - I will simply leave the information I feel confident in, and allow people to either ignore the info, or use it as a starting point for further investigation. I also never told anyone they were setting themselves up for failure - I merely pointed out information that i feel is not only true - but important to consider.

As I said, I think it matters how you do it. Simply contributing information you feel knowledgeable for people to use or ignore is very different than interrogating and challenging someone else's choices directly when they're not asking for your help/advice and they're not doing anything inherently harmful.

Turtle_L0ve

So yeah, I didn't read through all the comments because there are far too many but, I LOVE sweet tea. This has been the most difficult thing to try to eliminate (I choose to eliminate most sugar because I know its a failry simple way to reduce my caloric intake). So, I started doing 1/2 sweet tea, 1/2 unsweet tea when I go to restaurants and when I make it myself, I add less sugar. Now I just drink unsweet tea when I make it myself and gravitate toward water at restaurants.

As far as sweet treats, I'm more of a salty snack eater so eliminating the sweet foods wasn't necessarily my battle but my mom is addicted to chocolate and she recently found out she is diabetic. Part of her solution has been dark chocolate, especially Dove dark chocolate. Somehow it doesn't mess with her sugar and dark chocolate actually has some health benefits (I'm not a professional so I don't know all about it, but I've read some stuff). Frozen yogurt could be an option to replace icecream.

I know others have suggested fruit. If you want to make a shake, you could use yogurt (greek is supposed to be better for you, but again, I don't really know), fruit, and ice... or, if you like peanut butter (I'm very addicted to peanut butter) you could do a shake with 1/2 a banana, some PB2 (if you havent heard of this stuff, its amazing - it's basically powdered peanut butter so it doesnt have all the sugar and calories your average jar of peanut butter will - http://www.gnc.com/PB2-Powdered-Peanut-Butter/product.jsp?productId=15329556), milk of your choice, and ice. I like to make my shakes/smoothies with ViSalus protein powder but really any lower carb/sugar one would be fine.

I wrote more than I had intended and I'm not sure if its useful... but good luck!

Oh, and if soft drinks are your issue, my mom used to drink a lot of Diet Rite because it is made with Splenda instead of other supposedly more harmful artificial sweeteners.

tedrickp

That's mental health, I would suggest that with will power most could cope.

If you have some studies to prove the potential physical danger it would be easier to believe. I'm sure I am not the only one unconvinced.

In regards to physical health there are no negatives.

Real talk man - lets just agree to disagree because this is maybe the third time I have engaged with you on the forums and each time its the same thing - where you can't follow the discussion...or you choose not to.

I repeatedly said psychologically. I even said there were no health detriments.

Maybe you aren't reading what I am writing, or maybe you don't care - but in either scenario I don't want to engage with you. Not a personal thing, it's just futile and I repeat the same **** over and over. Maybe take some time to reread what I posted instead of being in such a hurry to post.

BTW chalking up eating disorders to "will power" is probably offensive to some. Im not so sensitive but people who have dealt with them may be.

sloth3toes

Just something that suddenly occurred to me, and I'm not going to quote anyone, because I'm not trying to single out any particular poster.

But, why would someone read the first post in an 11 page thread, and then comment, with, "I didn't read anyone else's comments, but here's my take on the subject." Why would you assume that anyone else is going to read your comment?

tedrickp

Rebalee - I never set myself up to be in that position. You are projecting your own feelings about me, instead of discussing my points. I am not trying to diagnose anyone.

I keep going back to "IF they have irrational..." because I can't know what their reasoning is. It is up to the people themselves to take a look at themselves and decide if they are being rational or not. I have never ever said people need to justify their reasoning to me. I don't care. I am just putting info out there.

And again I NEVER challenged anyone (outside of lustig and Joanne). Maybe you are getting me confused with someone else??? I simply saw people say that there is no health detriment to cutting out sugar, and replied that may be true, but there is potential for psychological damage.

I also have no idea what you are on about the cake vs fruit stuff. I didn't say that. The insulin stuff - again I don't care I didn't say it. And YOU said cutting sugar wasn't harmful. I pointed out reasons why it could be potentially harmful (psychologically) because I felt people should have a full look at the situation.

As I said, I think it matters how you do it. Simply contributing information you feel knowledgeable for people to use or ignore is very different than interrogating and challenging someone else's choices directly when they're not asking for your help/advice and they're not doing anything inherently harmful.

And I did it just like I said. I simply dropped my information as to why total sugar restriction can potentially lead to an unhealthy relationship with food. I didn't interrogate or challenge anyone. Yall can look up and read my posts.

EDIT: And my piece is said, Im not going to engage any further in this silly back and forth, where you try and tell me what I said and what I meant - when the posts above can totally speak for themselves. Have a great day.

Turtle_L0ve

Just something that suddenly occurred to me, and I'm not going to quote anyone, because I'm not trying to single out any particular poster.

But, why would someone read the first post in an 11 page thread, and then comment, with, "I didn't read anyone else's comments, but here's my take on the subject." Why would you assume that anyone else is going to read your comment?

I would do that because I read the OPs initial post and was replying to the original question asked. I wasn't trying to join the argument about the benefits or risks of eating versus not eating sugar (which was in the comment right above my post). I was simply providing a response to the OP. I guess I should have quoted the initial post so you'd understand...?

rebalee8

Rebalee - I never set myself up to be in that position. You are projecting your own feelings about me, instead of discussing my points. I am not trying to diagnose anyone.

I keep going back to "IF they have irrational..." because I can't know what their reasoning is. It is up to the people themselves to take a look at themselves and decide if they are being rational or not. I have never ever said people need to justify their reasoning to me. I don't care. I am just putting info out there.

And again I NEVER challenged anyone (outside of lustig and Joanne). Maybe you are getting me confused with someone else??? I simply saw people say that there is no health detriment to cutting out sugar, and replied that may be true, but there is potential for psychological damage.

I also have no idea what you are on about the cake vs fruit stuff. I didn't say that. The insulin stuff - again I don't care I didn't say it. And YOU said cutting sugar wasn't harmful. I pointed out reasons why it could be potentially harmful (psychologically) because I felt people should have a full look at the situation.

As I said, I think it matters how you do it. Simply contributing information you feel knowledgeable for people to use or ignore is very different than interrogating and challenging someone else's choices directly when they're not asking for your help/advice and they're not doing anything inherently harmful.

And I did it just like I said. I simply dropped my information as to why total sugar restriction can potentially lead to an unhealthy relationship with food. I didn't interrogate or challenge anyone. Yall can look up and read my posts.

EDIT: And my piece is said, Im not going to engage any further in this silly back and forth, where you try and tell me what I said and what I meant - when the posts above can totally speak for themselves. Have a great day.

You jumped in the middle of a convo I was having with someone else, seemingly standing with them. So, if you didn't want to get into that particular argument and that wasn't your position, maybe you shouldn't have stepped into (quoted) that particular conversation?

tennisdude2004

That's mental health, I would suggest that with will power most could cope.

If you have some studies to prove the potential physical danger it would be easier to believe. I'm sure I am not the only one unconvinced.

In regards to physical health there are no negatives.

Real talk man - lets just agree to disagree because this is maybe the third time I have engaged with you on the forums and each time its the same thing - where you can't follow the discussion...or you choose not to.

I repeatedly said psychologically. I even said there were no health detriments.

Maybe you aren't reading what I am writing, or maybe you don't care - but in either scenario I don't want to engage with you. Not a personal thing, it's just futile and I repeat the same **** over and over. Maybe take some time to reread what I posted instead of being in such a hurry to post.

BTW chalking up eating disorders to "will power" is probably offensive to some. Im not so sensitive but people who have dealt with them may be.

I am reading what you are writing, which is why I felt it necessary to post my first comment about the reason/rational a lot of people cut back on sugar. You seem to be under the misapprehension that it is due to some demonizing of sugar itself and that it will ultimately lead to mental health issue? really!!!

I was suggesting that a lot of people cut back on it because its a simple and easy way to cut back on calories and to get them into a calorie deficit - which after all for weight loss Is the goal.

Also, I personally believe that someone with a pre-deposition to a psychological issue like orthorexia nervosa, is just as likely to have some sort of unhealthy relationship with food/calories on a regimented calorie counting diet, where every mouthful of food needs to be logged and accounted for.

My comment about will power was a misunderstanding on my part, I though you meant people would find cutting back on sugar unsustainable! I would certainly not make light of anyone with a mental health issue.

I would have a question for you (although as we are not engaging - it can be a rhetorical question): If we do not restrict our intake of sugar to get into a calorie deficit (to loss weight), what are you suggesting we restrict? - no doubt you will agree, if people are currently eating in a surplus and need to get into a deficit, something will need to be restricted!

EDIT - typo

SunofaBeach14

Cutting back on sugar holds no potential dangers - in fact from a health point of view there is nothing negative about it.

Psychologically there are plenty of potential dangers of restrictive diets that demonize one food/ingredient/macro/etc....

Again before anyone cries - It is indeed just "potential" but I think people should be well aware of the POTENTIAL slippery slope that restrictive diets can lead too.

If it's not the case for you - good I dont care - Im just putting the info out there.

Not sure, why some people are so defensive about it though...

I feel your pain

FlaxMilk

I merely said that irrational food restrictions are a main characteristic of orthorexia nervosa (and binge eating/anorexia). That is simply a fact.

I'm not opposed to the idea of orthorexia getting more research and attention, but there are very few facts when it comes to the term. I don't believe it has achieved official recognition yet, though I could be wrong and haven't looked on that in while. Irrational food restriction isn't enough alone to give someone a diagnosis. If I eliminate added sugars but it doesn't cause clinically significant life impairment or cause harm to my body, that's not a disorder, it's a choice. Refusing to eat anything that didn't come from your home due to contamination would be an issue, but that would also have to be established as separate from OCD. Getting a salad and bringing your own oil and vinegar when you go out to eat makes you a little high maintenance, not sufficient evidence of disordered eating.

Got_Discipline

Just something that suddenly occurred to me, and I'm not going to quote anyone, because I'm not trying to single out any particular poster.

But, why would someone read the first post in an 11 page thread, and then comment, with, "I didn't read anyone else's comments, but here's my take on the subject." Why would you assume that anyone else is going to read your comment?

Well because I the OP of this thread am still reading it. I truly am amazed that such a simple concept has turned into such a big topic! Plus I thank each and everyone of you for your posts. :drinker:

jodyblanchard

This time I am trying to cut out SUGAR. By not adding sugar or eating things with so much sugar in them. Unfortunately here in America we love sugar and most things have sugar in them, but I am working on it. I am craving sweet things by the afternoon I am also feeling quite a bit more tired with out all the added sugar in my diet. This is like day two hopefully by weeks end I will be feeling alot better....

Do you have any helpful hints on how to cut sugar from my diet?

As a lifelong sugar addict, I can tell you to cold turkey it and eliminate all know sugar from your diet. After 4 days, you won't crave it at all. Add fat and protein. Good Luck.

fooninie

This time I am trying to cut out SUGAR. By not adding sugar or eating things with so much sugar in them. Unfortunately here in America we love sugar and most things have sugar in them, but I am working on it. I am craving sweet things by the afternoon I am also feeling quite a bit more tired with out all the added sugar in my diet. This is like day two hopefully by weeks end I will be feeling alot better....

Do you have any helpful hints on how to cut sugar from my diet?

Increase your protein. My personal trainer had me on a high protein, no sugar meal plan. I was averaging about 140-150 grams of protein per day and that took care of most of the crashes and hunger. What it did not fix is the food dependancy that I had. That took work on my part! Good luck with your goals!

perseverance14

One of the articles I was reading on here said it, keep it under 5% of your calorie intake. I do that (4-5%) and don't use sucrose, it is either sucralose, xylitol (in my gum) or stevia, which I consider the best of the 3 and of course fructose that occurs naturally in my food.

I was always against artificial sweeteners, but they are really not bothering me (except aspartame, I try to avoid that one because I can/do have bad reactions to it), and I am doing just fine.

What I will do in the long run I can't say, maybe I will go back to sucrose and honey, but I will still keep it low. You can keep it low and still have your sweets.

I love chocorite chocolate (but they again I am not a sweet chocolate fan, I like the high cacao dark stuff), and chocorite uses stevia. I can have one little piece of that a day if I want, and it is no biggie, but I do love my chocolate. If I ever want to splurge and eat the whole bar, as long as I fit it in my macros, that is no biggie either, but usually that is more than I want to spare from other things that are better for me to eat nutritionally speaking, I have only done it once.

ginkozen

Check out symptoms of Candida die-off. I take NAC (with Molybdenum and Selenium) supplements they help a lot.

lemurcat12

I cleaned up my eating and feel TONS better when I'm not constantly eating that crap. Do I still eat sugar? Yup. I put it in my coffee, I'll eat graham crackers with preserves, home made sweets ... I just make sure I fit the cals into my daily allotment and I make sure I don't eat sugar, sugar, sugar all the time. It's the constant hand-to-mouth of it that wrecks havoc with your blood sugar, up and down and all.

Apart from the use of the term "crap"--IMO sugar adds to certain recipes, and I like sweet treats like ice cream, enjoyed less often and with more moderation and based on my appreciation for the taste of the food, not to bury my emotions, and don't see how good quality, tasty food can possibly be described as "crap" just because you shouldn't overeat it--I generally agree with this. I just think it's worth pointing out that this is not really what is being argued about. I don't see anyone saying that there is never any reason for anyone to reduce the amount of sugar they are consuming, or to make sure it fits into one's calories for the day. The assertion that I understand is at hand is that it's better, healthier for everyone to eliminate added sugar, that it's always more desireable to forego it if one can. I suppose I could if I really believed that were true--I managed to get fat without being prone to binging and I certainly don't think I'm addicted to sugar. But there's no evidence that supports such a rigid requirement.

There's something else going on when people insist that we should NOT EVER eat a particular food vs. avoiding excessive amounts and simply deciding whether the calories are worth it with respect to a particular food item at a particular time. Maybe it's just that it's easier to think of yourself as someone who doesn't eat whatever it is (not you, since you do eat it like you said) rather than having to decide regularly about specific items, but that alone wouldn't explain the efforts to make it a generalizable rule that defines good health or applies to everyone.

Jen5000

Well, this topic will go on forever with every opinion. I did not mean to imply that sugar is EVIL or that I NEVER, EVER have it. But those who watch their sugar intake will also automatically and without trying to follow a "diet" can lose weight simply by cutting out lots of sugar and the "junk" carbs. If you consume a lot of it, you might as well give yourself a huge dose of insulin, which = fat storing hormone. I steer clear of everything I know is loaded ... sugared cereal, cookies, cakes, etc. as well as TRANS fats. After a few weeks of this, I rarely have cravings for it. And no, all sugar is not equal. Someone (don't even recall what product it's for) runs a commercial where the person makes a statement that "sugar is sugar". That's not true. I'm not much of a fruit person, but I have the fruits I like (which happen to be some of the lowest sugar ones...strawberries, watermelon) but this natural sugar is not the same as the high fructose "CHEAP" sugar in processed junk food and hidden in lots of other foods so they don't have to list "SUGAR" as a top ingredient. There are studies that show the "CHEAP" high fructose syrup sugar inhibits our hormones from signalling the brain when we're full. And people who keep eating or eat when not hungry...which = gaining weight - what do people tend to eat when they're not really hungry...SUGAR or salt. Staying conscious of how much sugar you consume and being aware of it - helps you eat healthy without feeling deprived, it becomes a lifestyle and not a 'diet'.

laurenbeahl

Sugar overload will definitely help add on some weight. I have found it is best to get any sugars I ingest from fruit. Also, like you, I always crave something sweet later in the day (particularly after dinner). Sugar free jello pudding cups have become my bestfriend!

lemurcat12

I understand shouting down zealots who say that everyone needs to do it this way or that our societal ills are somehow based in sugar (haha that's my favorite), but pushing back on people who say "this is what works for me" or "this is how I do it". No. You become a zealot yourself then.

I pretty much agree with your points, but I wonder if there's a difference in how people are reading some of the assertions. I realize that there are people here who think it is important to challenge those who take on restrictive diets, and I don't--in part because I've found temporary more restrictive diets helpful for various purposes myself and also just because people are different. But my impression so far is that a lot of the time people don't just stick to assertions about what has worked for them personally, but formulate broader rules that are supposed to define what is healthy or not in general. For example:

I follow the rule of did it grow that way? For example - a tomato grows into a tomato. But no one ever grew a cookie. Whole foods are more nutritionally dense and whether you eat 100 calories worth of tomatoes or a 100 calorie cookie - your body is going to process and benefit from them differently. So I gues what I'm getting at is -- a calorie is not a calorie any way you slice it.

This starts as a statement about a personal rule, but seems to become something else--an assertion that eating whole foods is healthier than eating other foods in general. Then there's an assertion that somehow whether you eat a food whole or not determines not only how nutritious it is, but also how the calories affect you--presumably that you can't get fat eating whole foods or perhaps that you can't lose weight while eating other sorts of foods, neither of which is true. Thus, doesn't it seem to call for a response?

And to digress into that response, I'm honestly puzzled about the distinction being made. Lots of foods--sweet treats and others--are made, essentially, from whole foods. For example, lamb stew doesn't "grow that way," but it's prepared from ingredients that did. And it can be more or less fattening without its dependence on whole foods changing--depending on what whole foods are added, in what proportions, what cut of meat is used, etc.

Similarly, one can easily make ice cream using whole ingredients, unless sugar doesn't count as a whole ingredient (or dairy doesn't, but that would be even more puzzling). Yet clearly sugar comes from a plant in the first place and one can make sweet treats using alternative sources of sweetness (like honey or the various things used in paleo recipes) and I am not convinced that makes them nutritionally superior. This is a generalizable rule that doesn't really seem grounded in anything except sounding virtuous (more natural is always better).

Also (to continue with the digression), with respect to the calorie aspect of it, I happen to have a recipe for chocolate chip cookies and can easily check the source of the calories. For one cookie of 206 calories, fewer than 34 calories are from the combination of white and brown sugar! Now, about 40% of the calories in the chips (or about 19 per cookie) are also attributed to sugar, so if you add those this gives us about 53 calories per cookie from sugar including the chips, but even that isn't really that many calories to be so demonized. A far higher number of the calories in my cookie recipe are from butter (about 90), with the rest mostly attributable to flour. Now I get that the anti-sugar people may also eschew butter and flour, but this seems to suggest that the "sugar is responsible for obesity" thing is overstated.

prattiger65

Well, this topic will go on forever with every opinion. I did not mean to imply that sugar is EVIL or that I NEVER, EVER have it. But those who watch their sugar intake will also automatically and without trying to follow a "diet" can lose weight simply by cutting out lots of sugar and the "junk" carbs. If you consume a lot of it, you might as well give yourself a huge dose of insulin, which = fat storing hormone. I steer clear of everything I know is loaded ... sugared cereal, cookies, cakes, etc. as well as TRANS fats. After a few weeks of this, I rarely have cravings for it. And no, all sugar is not equal. Someone (don't even recall what product it's for) runs a commercial where the person makes a statement that "sugar is sugar". That's not true. I'm not much of a fruit person, but I have the fruits I like (which happen to be some of the lowest sugar ones...strawberries, watermelon) but this natural sugar is not the same as the high fructose "CHEAP" sugar in processed junk food and hidden in lots of other foods so they don't have to list "SUGAR" as a top ingredient. There are studies that show the "CHEAP" high fructose syrup sugar inhibits our hormones from signalling the brain when we're full. And people who keep eating or eat when not hungry...which = gaining weight - what do people tend to eat when they're not really hungry...SUGAR or salt. Staying conscious of how much sugar you consume and being aware of it - helps you eat healthy without feeling deprived, it becomes a lifestyle and not a 'diet'.

Opinion, anecdotal, and some just wrong. Your body treats all sugars the same. You can over eat and gain weight while not eating sugar. Please post these studies. Thanks.