Sugar addict! But in a "good" way...
Options
Replies
-
As QuietBloom said at the end of the process it's converted into sugar. Trying to make the argument by asking if there is any evidence that harm would come to the brain without you consuming sugar is ignoring the process in which carbs are metabolized. Again, the argument isn't if we need added sugar it's if we need sugar period.
The statement wasn't added sugar isn't needed it was sugar isn't needed.
Yes I know that but will you body actually create enough through glucogensis to provide the brain with enough to meet its requirements?
None? Are you saying that the brain does not need sugar?lol.. There is no such thing as "good sugar." As mentioned, the human body has no need for sugar.
Our bodies can make it. No need to ingest it. That said, I eat raisins and blueberries and bananas because they have other nutrients I do need. So far so good, although I tend to eat them along with other things because otherwise I get either nauseated or hungrier than I need to be.
And with that said, the body is creating it because it "needs it", no?
Since you are an obviously athletic person, I bet there are times in your day even during waking hours that your body creates ketones to compensate for you using up your carbs, and you seem to be doing just fine. So why worry about your body making sugar, either?
I haven't found anything that says fueling the brain with added sugar is required, but if you have a scientific link I'd like to read it.
Let me be more precise: Is there any indication that going on a diet that contains zero consumption of sugar from any source (I mean sugar, not carbs!) is bad for the brain?
Carbohydrates are broken down into sugar (glucose and fructose) by your body. And the fruit that you said you eat contains sugar - lots of it, actually. And glucose can also be obtained by the body from meat and fat. It's in everything, sorry.
I have no problem with that. But hypothetically, let's say someone got zero sugar (not counting carbs which I do know are broken down) from any source, including fruit. Is there any evidence their brain would be harmed in any way? Cause if so, I haven't seen it.
As far as a comment you made about me being athletic and there being a point throughout the day when my body produces ketones to compensate for the total usage of carbs/glycogen, that's not really a concern for me due to the fact the when I'm in a deficit I keep carbohydrates as high as possible at all time and do no aerobic exercises of any kind.
So awesome, no need to eat sugar, any other carb will do. I'll keep my fruits, though. I think they make me feel fantastic, and they taste good, too.
Also, you still probably convert to ketosis when you sleep from what I understand. Either way, no harm done. I am interested in the longterm effects of a low carb diets on the brain, though. One documentary cited brain fog, but it was only a couple weeks in when they did the cognition testing, I wonder how people who have been in ketosis for months or years perform?0 -
The statement wasn't added sugar isn't needed it was sugar isn't needed.
Yes I know that but will you body actually create enough through glucogensis to provide the brain with enough to meet its requirements?
None? Are you saying that the brain does not need sugar?lol.. There is no such thing as "good sugar." As mentioned, the human body has no need for sugar.
Our bodies can make it. No need to ingest it. That said, I eat raisins and blueberries and bananas because they have other nutrients I do need. So far so good, although I tend to eat them along with other things because otherwise I get either nauseated or hungrier than I need to be.
And with that said, the body is creating it because it "needs it", no?
Since you are an obviously athletic person, I bet there are times in your day even during waking hours that your body creates ketones to compensate for you using up your carbs, and you seem to be doing just fine. So why worry about your body making sugar, either?
I haven't found anything that says fueling the brain with added sugar is required, but if you have a scientific link I'd like to read it.
Let me be more precise: Is there any indication that going on a diet that contains zero consumption of sugar from any source (I mean sugar, not carbs!) is bad for the brain?
The claim was that because you can get what you need in other ways all sugar (in other words, fruit) is bad sugar. That makes no sense. I don't need broccoli either. I can live just fine without it, but that doesn't make it bad for me.
This argument is made all the time about all sorts of food, and it proves nothing.0 -
The statement wasn't added sugar isn't needed it was sugar isn't needed.
Yes I know that but will you body actually create enough through glucogensis to provide the brain with enough to meet its requirements?
None? Are you saying that the brain does not need sugar?lol.. There is no such thing as "good sugar." As mentioned, the human body has no need for sugar.
Our bodies can make it. No need to ingest it. That said, I eat raisins and blueberries and bananas because they have other nutrients I do need. So far so good, although I tend to eat them along with other things because otherwise I get either nauseated or hungrier than I need to be.
And with that said, the body is creating it because it "needs it", no?
Since you are an obviously athletic person, I bet there are times in your day even during waking hours that your body creates ketones to compensate for you using up your carbs, and you seem to be doing just fine. So why worry about your body making sugar, either?
I haven't found anything that says fueling the brain with added sugar is required, but if you have a scientific link I'd like to read it.
Let me be more precise: Is there any indication that going on a diet that contains zero consumption of sugar from any source (I mean sugar, not carbs!) is bad for the brain?
The claim was that because you can get what you need in other ways all sugar (in other words, fruit) is bad sugar. That makes no sense. I don't need broccoli either. I can live just fine without it, but that doesn't make it bad for me.
This argument is made all the time about all sorts of food, and it proves nothing.
The comparison is somewhat flawed. Sugar by itself and a lot of foods that contain sugar have no nutritional value besides calories (should you need them) while broccoli does.0 -
The statement wasn't added sugar isn't needed it was sugar isn't needed.
Yes I know that but will you body actually create enough through glucogensis to provide the brain with enough to meet its requirements?
None? Are you saying that the brain does not need sugar?lol.. There is no such thing as "good sugar." As mentioned, the human body has no need for sugar.
Our bodies can make it. No need to ingest it. That said, I eat raisins and blueberries and bananas because they have other nutrients I do need. So far so good, although I tend to eat them along with other things because otherwise I get either nauseated or hungrier than I need to be.
And with that said, the body is creating it because it "needs it", no?
Since you are an obviously athletic person, I bet there are times in your day even during waking hours that your body creates ketones to compensate for you using up your carbs, and you seem to be doing just fine. So why worry about your body making sugar, either?
I haven't found anything that says fueling the brain with added sugar is required, but if you have a scientific link I'd like to read it.
Let me be more precise: Is there any indication that going on a diet that contains zero consumption of sugar from any source (I mean sugar, not carbs!) is bad for the brain?
The claim was that because you can get what you need in other ways all sugar (in other words, fruit) is bad sugar. That makes no sense. I don't need broccoli either. I can live just fine without it, but that doesn't make it bad for me.
This argument is made all the time about all sorts of food, and it proves nothing.
The comparison is somewhat flawed. Sugar by itself and a lot of foods that contain sugar have no nutritional value besides calories (should you need them) while broccoli does.
Go back and read the claim we are discussing. It's specifically referencing fruit. The comparison is right on.
Beyond that, saying you don't need a specific food is simply not a valid argument for the proposition that it's bad for you. If you are short on nutrients or low on calories it would be a place to cut, yes, and people could rationally choose not to eat it for such reasons or others, but that's not what is being claimed here (or usually) with the "you don't need it" assertion.0 -
Honestly, I wish people would use the search function instead of starting new threads. I'm so sick of seeing people fear mongering and acting like sugar is the devil. Why not just enjoy life? Do you have diabetes? If not, then sugar from fruit is not going to hurt you. People like to demonize processed foods and added sugar, but losing these fifty pounds without them would have made life miserable. If you like it, eat it, and don't let anyone tell you that you shouldn't.0
-
The statement wasn't added sugar isn't needed it was sugar isn't needed.
Yes I know that but will you body actually create enough through glucogensis to provide the brain with enough to meet its requirements?
None? Are you saying that the brain does not need sugar?lol.. There is no such thing as "good sugar." As mentioned, the human body has no need for sugar.
Our bodies can make it. No need to ingest it. That said, I eat raisins and blueberries and bananas because they have other nutrients I do need. So far so good, although I tend to eat them along with other things because otherwise I get either nauseated or hungrier than I need to be.
And with that said, the body is creating it because it "needs it", no?
Since you are an obviously athletic person, I bet there are times in your day even during waking hours that your body creates ketones to compensate for you using up your carbs, and you seem to be doing just fine. So why worry about your body making sugar, either?
I haven't found anything that says fueling the brain with added sugar is required, but if you have a scientific link I'd like to read it.
Let me be more precise: Is there any indication that going on a diet that contains zero consumption of sugar from any source (I mean sugar, not carbs!) is bad for the brain?
The claim was that because you can get what you need in other ways all sugar (in other words, fruit) is bad sugar. That makes no sense. I don't need broccoli either. I can live just fine without it, but that doesn't make it bad for me.
This argument is made all the time about all sorts of food, and it proves nothing.
The comparison is somewhat flawed. Sugar by itself and a lot of foods that contain sugar have no nutritional value besides calories (should you need them) while broccoli does.
Go back and read the claim we are discussing. It's specifically referencing fruit. The comparison is right on.
Beyond that, saying you don't need a specific food is simply not a valid argument for the proposition that it's bad for you. If you are short on nutrients or low on calories it would be a place to cut, yes, and people could rationally choose not to eat it for such reasons or others, but that's not what is being claimed here (or usually) with the "you don't need it" assertion.
Look around at the average American. We're on average short on nutrients and definitely in need of cutting calories. Therefore, I agree, sugar is the place to start. Not saying all sugar for everyone must go, especially when it comes to things like fruit, but in general, it's a good thing to cut down on.0 -
Honestly, I wish people would use the search function instead of starting new threads. I'm so sick of seeing people fear mongering and acting like sugar is the devil. Why not just enjoy life? Do you have diabetes? If not, then sugar from fruit is not going to hurt you. People like to demonize processed foods and added sugar, but losing these fifty pounds without them would have made life miserable. If you like it, eat it, and don't let anyone tell you that you shouldn't.
Evidence is growing, that excess blood glucose and sugar is toxic, implicated in systemic inflammation, autoimmune diseases, obesity, diabetes, prediabetes, dementia.
Meat is how we got these big human brains in the first place. We didn't get to the moon by eating apples.0 -
Low-carb/ketosis fans are becoming the new vegans; they feel he need to inform everyone about how evil their diet is. Beyond obnoxious.
Btw, there is plenty of evidence that our ancestors had a diet rich in vegetables AND fruit.
https://eds-b-ebscohost-com.www2.lib.ku.edu:2443/ehost/detail?sid=04ed76b6-cf25-4280-8022-2e27ba108153@sessionmgr113&vid=1&hid=110&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ==#db=a9h&AN=895339500 -
Sugar is not the enemy. I get angry with these trends in food and 'dieting'. For 5 years fats are bad, for 5 years carbs are bad etc etc. We all need a balanced life!!! For most healthy people (I am aware there are people with medical conditions PCOS, Diabetes etc) sugar can help with serotinin levels in our body. Low levels of this can cause depression, anxiety, addiction issues etc. It sounds like you are getting your sugars from good healthy unprocessed sources for the most part so there is no harm in it. Don't make it complicated and don't let anyone tell you an apple is bad for you!!0
-
They did a study a while ago (sorry, not able to call it up) where they put toddlers in a playroom during the daytime where they could be observed. They laid out all sorts of food for them to eat. The tots could eat whatever they wanted. Ice cream, cake, and candy was included along with vegetables, meats, and all the "good" food.
Guess what?
Over time, the youngsters ate EXACTLY the right balance of foods and the exact amount of calories their level of metabolism and growth required.
What does that tell you about today's "obesity" epidemic?
Let your mind run wild with theories. (hint: TV ads, radio ads, social cues, over-indulgent mommies, etc)
Neatness counts.
There was also however a study where they put small children in a room with sweets. Some of the children ate a few and moved on, losing their focus on them. But some of the children kept going back to the sweets. They actually did gene testing and found it has a genetic basis. I can't find it right now (it was part of a documentary) so feel free to disregard, since I can't link it.
That said, when I was a child, I would not have balanced my own diet. I would have lived on cake, ice cream, cookies, and chips, with a burger thrown in now and then.0 -
Honestly, I wish people would use the search function instead of starting new threads. I'm so sick of seeing people fear mongering and acting like sugar is the devil. Why not just enjoy life? Do you have diabetes? If not, then sugar from fruit is not going to hurt you. People like to demonize processed foods and added sugar, but losing these fifty pounds without them would have made life miserable. If you like it, eat it, and don't let anyone tell you that you shouldn't.
Evidence is growing, that excess blood glucose and sugar is toxic, implicated in systemic inflammation, autoimmune diseases, obesity, diabetes, prediabetes, dementia.
Meat is how we got these big human brains in the first place. We didn't get to the moon by eating apples.
Got any data to support this?0 -
They did a study a while ago (sorry, not able to call it up) where they put toddlers in a playroom during the daytime where they could be observed. They laid out all sorts of food for them to eat. The tots could eat whatever they wanted. Ice cream, cake, and candy was included along with vegetables, meats, and all the "good" food.
Guess what?
Over time, the youngsters ate EXACTLY the right balance of foods and the exact amount of calories their level of metabolism and growth required.
What does that tell you about today's "obesity" epidemic?
Let your mind run wild with theories. (hint: TV ads, radio ads, social cues, over-indulgent mommies, etc)
Neatness counts.
There was also however a study where they put small children in a room with sweets. Some of the children ate a few and moved on, losing their focus on them. But some of the children kept going back to the sweets. They actually did gene testing and found it has a genetic basis. I can't find it right now (it was part of a documentary) so feel free to disregard, since I can't link it.
That said, when I was a child, I would not have balanced my own diet. I would have lived on cake, ice cream, cookies, and chips, with a burger thrown in now and then.
Well, we are talking over days and weeks.
Sure, you can pig out on crap for a day.
But keep it up for days.
In fact, if someone moans that they are "addicted" to (name the food), I challenge them to stock up on it and eat NOTHING BUT THAT FOOD for three days.
I bet they change their tune toute suite!!
I would have pigged out forever. When I got my first job, I ate crap nonstop until I hit about 17 and decided I'd like to be thinner so I could have a boyfriend. That was two solid years of chips, candy, chocolate syrup, ice cream, cookies, and cake.
Then I did the same thing four years ago, topping out at 245 pounds from under 130 pounds. And I gained most of that in less than a year.0 -
The statement wasn't added sugar isn't needed it was sugar isn't needed.
Yes I know that but will you body actually create enough through glucogensis to provide the brain with enough to meet its requirements?
None? Are you saying that the brain does not need sugar?lol.. There is no such thing as "good sugar." As mentioned, the human body has no need for sugar.
Our bodies can make it. No need to ingest it. That said, I eat raisins and blueberries and bananas because they have other nutrients I do need. So far so good, although I tend to eat them along with other things because otherwise I get either nauseated or hungrier than I need to be.
And with that said, the body is creating it because it "needs it", no?
Since you are an obviously athletic person, I bet there are times in your day even during waking hours that your body creates ketones to compensate for you using up your carbs, and you seem to be doing just fine. So why worry about your body making sugar, either?
I haven't found anything that says fueling the brain with added sugar is required, but if you have a scientific link I'd like to read it.
Let me be more precise: Is there any indication that going on a diet that contains zero consumption of sugar from any source (I mean sugar, not carbs!) is bad for the brain?
The claim was that because you can get what you need in other ways all sugar (in other words, fruit) is bad sugar. That makes no sense. I don't need broccoli either. I can live just fine without it, but that doesn't make it bad for me.
This argument is made all the time about all sorts of food, and it proves nothing.
The comparison is somewhat flawed. Sugar by itself and a lot of foods that contain sugar have no nutritional value besides calories (should you need them) while broccoli does.
Go back and read the claim we are discussing. It's specifically referencing fruit. The comparison is right on.
Beyond that, saying you don't need a specific food is simply not a valid argument for the proposition that it's bad for you. If you are short on nutrients or low on calories it would be a place to cut, yes, and people could rationally choose not to eat it for such reasons or others, but that's not what is being claimed here (or usually) with the "you don't need it" assertion.
Look around at the average American. We're on average short on nutrients and definitely in need of cutting calories. Therefore, I agree, sugar is the place to start. Not saying all sugar for everyone must go, especially when it comes to things like fruit, but in general, it's a good thing to cut down on.
Yes, if someone is overweight, that's a good thing to look at. It has nothing to do with the claim we were actually discussing, which was that all sugar is bad sugar. Nor does it have anything to do with the silly generalization that if something is not required it's bad for you. Whether it's bad for you or not so often depends on context. On MFP, you can't really claim that sugar--let alone sugar from fruit, again, the topic of this thread--is bad because you might be overeating or not getting enough nutrients, since people are tracking their diets and know if they are overeating or likely short on nutrients. Like I maintain a deficit and eat lots of vegetables, enough protein, etc, and even--gasp--fruit and yet have room for some added sugar. To say the latter is unhealthy because other people eat lots of added sugar AND too many calories really isn't convincing. Certainly I limit added sugar because that's part of eating a balanced diet and sticking to a calorie limit.
That the sugar fear is out of hand is demonstrated beautifully by this thread by some saying that the OP needs to cut out the sugar in fruit and others assuming that she'd only eat lots of fruits because of some kind of sugar-driven cravings. Wacky.0 -
Yes, if someone is overweight, that's a good thing to look at.
This is a weight loss site, for the most part, anyway. I'm not trying to take it to extremes. I didn't say fruit sugar was the devil or anything of the sort (although personally I don't like to eat it in isolation from other foods because it will often make me feel ill or hungry when I do). Just saying calories that lack nutritional value are the first things that should go when someone needs to lose weight.
To be fair, that should equally apply to the rum I had tonight, too!0 -
Yes, if someone is overweight, that's a good thing to look at.
This is a weight loss site, for the most part, anyway. I'm not trying to take it to extremes. I didn't say fruit sugar was the devil or anything of the sort (although personally I don't like to eat it in isolation from other foods because it will often make me feel ill or hungry when I do). Just saying calories that lack nutritional value are the first things that should go when someone needs to lose weight.
To be fair, that should equally apply to the rum I had tonight, too!
Or, how about portion control? My weight problem came not from what I ate, but how much I ate. Not everyone got fat from eating sweets; some, like myself, just need to learn moderation, and that can be difficult when there's a hoard of people telling them to stop eating something entirely.0 -
Yes, if someone is overweight, that's a good thing to look at.
This is a weight loss site, for the most part, anyway. I'm not trying to take it to extremes. I didn't say fruit sugar was the devil or anything of the sort (although personally I don't like to eat it in isolation from other foods because it will often make me feel ill or hungry when I do). Just saying calories that lack nutritional value are the first things that should go when someone needs to lose weight.
To be fair, that should equally apply to the rum I had tonight, too!
Or, how about portion control? My weight problem came not from what I ate, but how much I ate. Not everyone got fat from eating sweets; some, like myself, just need to learn moderation, and that can be difficult when there's a hoard of people telling them to stop eating something entirely.
I never told you to stop. I know that stopping works best for me, though. Take those two drinks I had last night: any more, and I would have puked and passed out, something I strive very hard to avoid through moderation. Sugar, on the other hand, I can eat several thousand calories of (quite happily) and not get sick at all. Better in my case to have alcohol when I want to consume something for pleasure rather than nutritional value.
But do what works for you and makes you happy. I'm a big proponent of that.0 -
Please teach me how to spot folks who are short on nutrients on sight. I must learn this technique.
The statement wasn't added sugar isn't needed it was sugar isn't needed.
Yes I know that but will you body actually create enough through glucogensis to provide the brain with enough to meet its requirements?
None? Are you saying that the brain does not need sugar?lol.. There is no such thing as "good sugar." As mentioned, the human body has no need for sugar.
Our bodies can make it. No need to ingest it. That said, I eat raisins and blueberries and bananas because they have other nutrients I do need. So far so good, although I tend to eat them along with other things because otherwise I get either nauseated or hungrier than I need to be.
And with that said, the body is creating it because it "needs it", no?
Since you are an obviously athletic person, I bet there are times in your day even during waking hours that your body creates ketones to compensate for you using up your carbs, and you seem to be doing just fine. So why worry about your body making sugar, either?
I haven't found anything that says fueling the brain with added sugar is required, but if you have a scientific link I'd like to read it.
Let me be more precise: Is there any indication that going on a diet that contains zero consumption of sugar from any source (I mean sugar, not carbs!) is bad for the brain?
The claim was that because you can get what you need in other ways all sugar (in other words, fruit) is bad sugar. That makes no sense. I don't need broccoli either. I can live just fine without it, but that doesn't make it bad for me.
This argument is made all the time about all sorts of food, and it proves nothing.
The comparison is somewhat flawed. Sugar by itself and a lot of foods that contain sugar have no nutritional value besides calories (should you need them) while broccoli does.
Go back and read the claim we are discussing. It's specifically referencing fruit. The comparison is right on.
Beyond that, saying you don't need a specific food is simply not a valid argument for the proposition that it's bad for you. If you are short on nutrients or low on calories it would be a place to cut, yes, and people could rationally choose not to eat it for such reasons or others, but that's not what is being claimed here (or usually) with the "you don't need it" assertion.
Look around at the average American. We're on average short on nutrients and definitely in need of cutting calories. Therefore, I agree, sugar is the place to start. Not saying all sugar for everyone must go, especially when it comes to things like fruit, but in general, it's a good thing to cut down on.
The argument that 'we don't need sugar. . . oh, except carbs' is seriously flawed, as sugar is a carb, and because the body breaks down foods into sugar in order to function.0 -
Please teach me how to spot folks who are short on nutrients on sight. I must learn this technique.
The argument that 'we don't need sugar. . . oh, except carbs' is seriously flawed, as sugar is a carb, and because the body breaks down foods into sugar in order to function.
What many of us don't need to do is to consume calories with no nutritional value. Because we don't have the calories to spare. For example, I would have been better off eating something with protein and calcium in it last night than have the alcohol. I was short on both of those last night. If I'd had cookies, it would have been the same problem.
And when I was fat I almost never met my RDA on most nutrients. Why? Because most of my diet was sugar, specifically soda. And doctors are seeing cases of vitamin deficiencies in obese people.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 999 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions