cut the SUGAR out
Replies
-
Sugar doesn't make you fat, homey. Caloric surpluses do.
#truth0 -
So, you're back to claiming - in the portion that I bolded - that eating 10,000 calories a day of chicken breast can result in zero weight gain or loss, with no corroborating statement about the amount of exercise needed to maintain that stasis. If this is an incorrect understanding of your position, please clarify.Agreed, who is saying they do not?
In the nested quotes RIGHT ABOVE YOUR QUESTION:Carbs - converted to glucose, the glucose is then - taken up by the body as fuel, stored in the muscles and liver (limited storage), converted into body fat to be released as fuel at a later stage.
I have no idea who said what at this point, but after the assertion was made that fat comes from carbs, someone else saidSo eating 10,000 calories of chicken breast won't make you fat? Fascinating.
At least read what you're responding to?
I think you have a mixture of different quotes.
Someone made the comment that excessive sugar in the bloodstream gets converted to body fat - which is indeed possible.
I'm not sure where the notion that fat comes from carbs is from, or where the notion that you can only gain weight by over eating carbs. I think some people are deciding to read things into post from extra dramatic effect?
Maybe the best thing to do would be to read all of the posts relating to this to get a clearer picture.
Basically, overeating anything will cause a person to gain fat.
Agreed. Although studies have shown that over eating protein can result in no weight gain (no loss either), but no weight gain!
No I'm not backing it - as the first word in my post was agreed to the post above it. I was merely pointing out that a study had been done on protein consumption in a calorie surplus that showed no gain in weight. The study was based on fit males and females who were resitance training (so not your average joe) and probably not relevant to most on a SAD, but might be relevant to some on MFP.0 -
I am over my sugar macro everyday. But most of it is from fruit .. and a small amount from good normal food.
Thus I am not concerned as only a small portion is from "other food", aka extra dark chocolate I eat every morning. I am well below the daily recommended amount of sugar from processed food.0 -
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.
ps -- I'm a diabetic who poisened myself with sugar. Took 20 years for my lightbulb to go on -- cut the processed crap. I'm 43 and feel like I'm 18 again. I haven't felt this good in 20 years. You would have to force feed me to get sugar in my body again. It's poison and so are artificial sugars. I replaced real sugar for the artificial crap for 10 years and couldn't understand why I couldn't get my diabetes under control enough to come off the meds. My body was recognizing and processing the fake stuff just like real sugar. After eliminating the fake stuff all kinds of improvements in my life - less memory loss, less joint pain, less bloating, lower A1C, lower blood sugar. So there were no calories - but fake sugar poison!!
Eat it the way it grows!0 -
I never intended to get into the "Fruit vs Processed Sugar" argument. I was only relating to the OP what I've been doing. In fact, at this very moment, I am enjoying a nice helping of cantaloupe (yummy) and celebrating my 1.5# loss for the week. Works for me! :happy:0
-
It's also not "good" for you. It's neutral. Food choice is not a moral choice. And if you want to talk about the nutrition it brings. It's not a required nutrient. Yes, it will fulfill carbohydrate needs, but you can get that from other things, and sugar (and really we're talking sucrose/fructose here) doesn't provide micronutrients that you can't get elsewhere either. So really, no one is going to harm themselves nutritionally speaking if they cut down or cut out sugar. So it's really, really neutral.
First off, to qualify - I am ALL about personal preference. I think even on the MFP boards (where there is a lot of great information) that gets lost a lot.
However, while cutting out sugar may be "nutritionally" neutral, it may actually be psychologically detrimental. Doing something like avoiding all sugar (refined or otherwise) has the potential to create an unhealthy relationship with food.
Avoiding specific foods, or worse yet entire swaths of foods without a rational reason (and the scare tactics used by ****heads like Lustig, and posters like Joanne are irrational) is one of the main characteristics of orthorexia nervosa. It is also common trait of both binge eating and anorexia.
Not to mention sustainability:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11883916
So while I believe in personal preference, I don't think it is wrong for people here to warn others that their success in eliminating sugar may be coming at a high cost down the road.0 -
Explain it to me like I'm four. How are "Overeating anything will cause a person to get fat" and "over eating protein can result in no weight gain (no loss either)" compatible concepts? I can undesertand if either one is true, or the other is true, or both are false, but I simply cannot wrap my head around how both concepts can be held as true at the same time. That said, you have - by my understanding of your agreement, above - agreed that both statements are true. Please, explain how this works.
So, you're back to claiming - in the portion that I bolded - that eating 10,000 calories a day of chicken breast can result in zero weight gain or loss, with no corroborating statement about the amount of exercise needed to maintain that stasis. If this is an incorrect understanding of your position, please clarify.Agreed, who is saying they do not?
In the nested quotes RIGHT ABOVE YOUR QUESTION:Carbs - converted to glucose, the glucose is then - taken up by the body as fuel, stored in the muscles and liver (limited storage), converted into body fat to be released as fuel at a later stage.
I have no idea who said what at this point, but after the assertion was made that fat comes from carbs, someone else saidSo eating 10,000 calories of chicken breast won't make you fat? Fascinating.
At least read what you're responding to?
I think you have a mixture of different quotes.
Someone made the comment that excessive sugar in the bloodstream gets converted to body fat - which is indeed possible.
I'm not sure where the notion that fat comes from carbs is from, or where the notion that you can only gain weight by over eating carbs. I think some people are deciding to read things into post from extra dramatic effect?
Maybe the best thing to do would be to read all of the posts relating to this to get a clearer picture.
Basically, overeating anything will cause a person to gain fat.
Agreed. Although studies have shown that over eating protein can result in no weight gain (no loss either), but no weight gain!
No I'm not backing it - as the first word in my post was agreed to the post above it. I was merely pointing out that a study had been done on protein consumption in a calorie surplus that showed no gain in weight. The study was based on fit males and females who were resitance training (so not your average joe) and probably not relevant to most on a SAD, but might be relevant to some on MFP.0 -
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.
ps -- I'm a diabetic who poisened myself with sugar. Took 20 years for my lightbulb to go on -- cut the processed crap. I'm 43 and feel like I'm 18 again. I haven't felt this good in 20 years. You would have to force feed me to get sugar in my body again. It's poison and so are artificial sugars. I replaced real sugar for the artificial crap for 10 years and couldn't understand why I couldn't get my diabetes under control enough to come off the meds. My body was recognizing and processing the fake stuff just like real sugar. After eliminating the fake stuff all kinds of improvements in my life - less memory loss, less joint pain, less bloating, lower A1C, lower blood sugar. So there were no calories - but fake sugar poison!!
Eat it the way it grows!
A calorie is absolutely a calorie. I ate too much food for too many years and became fat. I cut out eating too much food and I feel better than I did at 18, I am 48 now. My body cant tell the difference between a cookie and a tomato. All of my health indicators are excellent now. I eat processed food, lots of sugar and fake sugar too! You would have to force my food from me. Eat it anyway you want to! Artificial sweeteners aren't poison either, that is a dangerous declaration based on a personal belief not backed up by science.0 -
Generally something can be correct, which you can agree with, however there can always be extreme exceptions to the general rule.
So both the general rule and the extreme exception can be correct.0 -
Generally something can be correct, which you can agree with, however there can always be extreme exceptions to the general rule.
So both the general rule and the extreme exception can be correct.
That definitely clears it up0 -
Generally something can be correct, which you can agree with, however there can always be extreme exceptions to the general rule.
So both the general rule and the extreme exception can be correct.
That definitely clears it up
:flowerforyou:0 -
It's also not "good" for you. It's neutral. Food choice is not a moral choice. And if you want to talk about the nutrition it brings. It's not a required nutrient. Yes, it will fulfill carbohydrate needs, but you can get that from other things, and sugar (and really we're talking sucrose/fructose here) doesn't provide micronutrients that you can't get elsewhere either. So really, no one is going to harm themselves nutritionally speaking if they cut down or cut out sugar. So it's really, really neutral.
First off, to qualify - I am ALL about personal preference. I think even on the MFP boards (where there is a lot of great information) that gets lost a lot.
However, while cutting out sugar may be "nutritionally" neutral, it may actually be psychologically detrimental. Doing something like avoiding all sugar (refined or otherwise) has the potential to create an unhealthy relationship with food.
Avoiding specific foods, or worse yet entire swaths of foods without a rational reason (and the scare tactics used by ****heads like Lustig, and posters like Joanne are irrational) is one of the main characteristics of orthorexia nervosa. It is also common trait of both binge eating and anorexia.
Not to mention sustainability:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11883916
So while I believe in personal preference, I don't think it is wrong for people here to warn others that their success in eliminating sugar may be coming at a high cost down the road.
And at what point did you get appointed arbiter of what's appropriately "rational" for other people? At what point did you get appointed harbinger of potential failure? At what point did you get into their head and history so that you know their story (as opposed to working off a bunch of assumptions)?
Like I said, if someone is asking for help or having trouble, that's one thing, but to start piping in and questioning people who are having success and telling them they're setting themselves up for failure because they're not doing something the way you think is right... you become as bad as the "fad" people you're working against.
Edit: And I agree with you on Lustig. I don't know Joanne enough to comment. And as I've been saying all along. I DO think it's important to respond to the people who push this kind of "eat only this food" or "don't eat this food" fad stuff on others.0 -
I am very new here but thought I'd chime in. This is what is working for me: First, I get most of my sugar from fruits. Second, I approach sugar like I do salt. I am trying more foods without added flavorings (salt, sugar, whatever), some I really enjoy in their naked state, and some take a little more getting used to. My weakness has always been chocolate. Now I treat myself to chocolate that is at least 85% cocao (sp?). A little bitter at first but I find that I really like the taste and don't miss all the added sugar you find in regular chocolate.
As I had pointed out before, your body does not know the difference between sugar it gets from fruit and sugar it gets from any other source (i.e., cookies, cake, etc).
If you somehow extract the sugar from the rest of the food it's eat with, yes, that's true. The sugar itself is processed exactly the same.
However, what happens in your body regarding glucose and insulin levels IS different when you eat a piece of fruit versus when you eat a piece of cake.
That said, if you're not diabetic (of have some other metabolic disorder related to glucose/insulin processing) and are not in a group considered high-risk for such a disease, then the difference is inconsequential.
that is the point here. For normal, healthy people who are simply trying to lose weight, there is no reason to 'cut' out sugar, carbs, or any other type of food. Simply eating at a calorie deficit while a eating a healthy balance of food will work. Eating treats is fine too, as long as it is in moderation. Sugar is not bad for you in normal amounts.
It's also not "good" for you. It's neutral. Food choice is not a moral choice. And if you want to talk about the nutrition it brings. It's not a required nutrient. Yes, it will fulfill carbohydrate needs, but you can get that from other things, and sugar (and really we're talking sucrose/fructose here) doesn't provide micronutrients that you can't get elsewhere either. So really, no one is going to harm themselves nutritionally speaking if they cut down or cut out sugar. So it's really, really neutral.
But there are plenty of reasons a normal, healthy person who is trying to lose weight may want to cut out sugar. It may help them reach a deficit, it may help them feel more in control, it may be part of wanting to change their eating habits. They may just want to.. that's a perfectly valid reason... and it's not your job or mine to audit the food choices of others.
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.
It's not a question of zealotry, it's a question of touting a program that proves often to be unsustainable. Attempting to cut out a food source that many find to be satisfying in moderation while still fitting it into a calorie deficit proves to be ultimately much more sustainable in the long run for many more people than a 'diet' program that requires a person to try to stick to cutting out something they often find they cannot live without.
Yeah, it is a question of zealotry. And you really are not understanding the point I'm making due to what I would call your zealotry (perhaps not pro-sugar zealotry, but rather counter-anti-sugar zealotry).
You don't know what is sustainable for someone else. You don't know their medical history. And if someone says they're cutting out or down on sugar, they don't owe you any explanation as to why. They get to do it just because they want to. And it doesn't even matter if they're doing it because they're misinformed. You're not "Official Diet Truthteller of the World".
Sure, if someone is asking for advice - i.e. "I keep 'cheating' and going over my calories how do I stop?" - by all means help them out. But preaching to someone talking about what's working for them how sugar in an apple is not different than sugar in cake is no different than an anti-sugar zealot telling someone to cut out sugar because sugar baaaad {scary fingers}.
teaching sustainability and willpower is about learning based on moderation. That's what I'm talking about. Not going on a rant about zealotry or cheating or scare tactics. I've never claimed to be an official anything, but I've been on this site for a few years and helped quite a few people, as opposed to your newly-joined since February status and your obvious looking for any argument tactics. Believe what you want.
Because you can tell anything about my history, how many people I've helped or knowledge based on when I registered for a dieting website.
But, I'm glad that the fact that you've been here longer makes you feel good about yourself.0 -
And at what point did you get appointed arbiter of what's appropriately "rational" for other people? At what point did you get appointed harbinger of potential failure? At what point did you get into their head and history so that you know their story (as opposed to working off a bunch of assumptions)?
Like I said, if someone is asking for help or having trouble, that's one thing, but to start piping in and questioning people who are having success and telling them they're setting themselves up for failure because they're not doing something the way you think is right... you become as bad as the "fad" people you're working against.
Edit: And I agree with you on Lustig. I don't know Joanne enough to comment. And as I've been saying all along. I DO think it's important to respond to the people who push this kind of "eat only this food" or "don't eat this food" fad stuff on others.
I never once claimed to be the arbiter of what is rational for other people.
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.
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.
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 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.0 -
And at what point did you get appointed arbiter of what's appropriately "rational" for other people? At what point did you get appointed harbinger of potential failure? At what point did you get into their head and history so that you know their story (as opposed to working off a bunch of assumptions)?
Like I said, if someone is asking for help or having trouble, that's one thing, but to start piping in and questioning people who are having success and telling them they're setting themselves up for failure because they're not doing something the way you think is right... you become as bad as the "fad" people you're working against.
Edit: And I agree with you on Lustig. I don't know Joanne enough to comment. And as I've been saying all along. I DO think it's important to respond to the people who push this kind of "eat only this food" or "don't eat this food" fad stuff on others.
I never once claimed to be the arbiter of what is rational for other people.
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.
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.
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 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.
Cutting back on sugar holds no potential dangers - in fact from a health point of view there is nothing negative about it.
I think a lot of peoples logic though for cutting back on sugar (mine certainly was).
Reducing sugar = reduced calories = eating in a calorie deficit = weight loss.0 -
Do you have any helpful hints on how to cut sugar from my diet?
When you eat sugar, or any fast digesting carbs, eat them with slow digesting foods (foods with protein and/or fiber). Slower digestion means slower release of glucose so less sharp rise and fall in blood glucose that can trigger hunger.
It's often easier to eat only one or two oatmeal walnut cookies, than it is to eat only one or two Oreos. And the oatmeal walnut cookies will offer more micronutrients.0 -
I'm having the same problem, and this is the main reason it has taken me so long to lose the excess weight. Sugar is the most addictive substance I have ever come across.
I find that if I make sure to get enough protein (fish, lean meats, lentils, plain yogurt), and fill up on that plus salads, vegetables, and low GI fruits, I am stronger mentally and emotionally, and less susceptible to sugar binges. For me, sugar slip-ups occur during those moments of weakness when I've let myself get too hungry and am also tired, stressed, or upset.
Thanks for the info. I can relate FOR SURE on the whole sugar being the most addictive. I too have sugar issues and have gained back a good 10-15 lbs. because I let myself go the past few months. I was doing well, not eating a lot of baked goods and whatnot, but then somewhere along the way I threw it all out the window and thought "I got this", needless to say, I didn't. I've come to accept it's a trigger for me and I need to minimize the amount of sugar in my diet as much as possible. It shows on my body, probably more than other's, when I consume more sugary foods. I've gained a few inches in the belly and many of my pants don't fit anymore. I'm not about to go buy an entire wardrobe to accommodate my lack of will power.0 -
Get "I Quit Sugar", she has some yummy recipes in them. One thing she recommends is increasing your fat intake. Fat satiates you, sugar does not.0
-
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...0 -
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...
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.0 -
No, but you set yourself up to be in that position.I never once claimed to be the arbiter of what is rational for other people.
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 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.
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.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.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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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?
0 -
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.0 -
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...?0 -
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?0 -
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 - typo0 -
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 pain0 -
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.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions