Moderation DOES NOT WORK for me

SunofaBeach14

I guess it depends on what literature you're reading. I've read literature that talks about HFCS being no different essentially than a lot of other sweeteners as it usually only contains slightly more fructose than other sweeteners (and most have a hard time digesting too much pure fructose which is why it's usually in combination with sucrose as seen in HFCS). It's also a cheaper option than sucrose from cane sugar, also important to manufacturer's bottomline. But I'm pretty sure that given its higher saturation point, it allows manufacturers to pump more fructose and sucrose into things like coke and other products than would be possible with cane sugar/sucrose alone.

So I guess it depends on what aspect of HFCS you're reading about.

I'll dig them up as they're pretty recent, but I drink Diet Coke when I drink sodas so it's not something that affects me all that much. The sugar I consume is in things like donuts and ice cream so it's very moderate amounts. I usually find that if I hit my protein and fat macros, and eat enough vegetables and whole grains to hit my fiber goals, that I just don't have all that many calories left over for things like ice cream and donuts, and I prefer beer.

Thank you. I'd really appreciate that. I think there is a lot more research out there to be done and I'm sure I haven't read it all.

Here is one that I came across a while ago from Princeton that I thought presented some interesting findings in rats -- that those that ate a diet with HFCS gained considerable more weight than those that ate the same calories of sucrose, and the level of HFCS was about half of what you see in regular soda. Part of the talk is the extra metabolic step that has to be done with sucrose than HFCS -- the fructose in HFCS is free/unbound unlike the fructose in sucrose. There are other interesting findings, but at the very least it seems to indicate that not all calories are equal and there seems to be something specifically different about HFCS.

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/

Also, from the article and apropos to our earlier detox discussion:

"The new research complements previous work led by Hoebel and Avena demonstrating that sucrose can be addictive, having effects on the brain similar to some drugs of abuse."

This is a Forbes article but it provides a good overview and links to the actual studies. It's worth a read.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/trevorbutterworth/2014/02/06/sweet-and-sour-the-media-decided-fructose-was-bad-for-america-but-science-had-second-thoughts/

Sabine_Stroehm

So you say that moderation does not work for you, okay, being overweight does not work for me. I've kept down my weight for 9 years now, and yes it's hard, yes I have constant fights with the voices in my head (just one more, just one more), yes I have a hard time stopping at 1 cookie or at just a handful of chips, or one piece of pizza, and yes, I live in a household that has all those goodies in the house on a daily basis. Again you say moderation does not work for you, hey, that's your decision. Being overweight does not work for me, that's my decisions.

Great that you found what works for you. I'd rather have zero cookies than one. I'd rather have zero chips than a handful (except on rare occasions, that I choose and then they're gonna be tortilla chips). And I'd rather make the pizza in a more healthful manner, with fewer calories. My only point in commenting on this thread was to suggest that there are other options. Having 1 cookie is just one of them. Each of us needs to find what works for us. The OP is trying to decide what works for her. And that may change. And that's fine too.

Congrats on maintaining for 9 years! I've been maintaining a bit longer than you and know it's quite an accomplishment.

Kalikel

Like a previous poster, I frequently use the spoiled child reference, too.

You are going to hear a lot of people say that you can eat whatever you want in moderation.

I won't be one of those people.

For an addict, generally it is an all-or-nothing approach because the chance of relapse is too high. Thus at alcoholics anonymous they tell you that you are only one drink away from being an alcoholic again. Now there are some new trains of thought that say that a moderation approach may work better, but generally speaking, recovering addicts completely abstain from their behavior because they lack the self-control to moderate their behavior.

The problem with food addiction is that we have no choice but to eat. You take your addiction out three times a day and play with it.

If there are foods that you cannot exercise self-control over and not over-eat, then you are probably best avoiding those foods altogether.

When I crack open a tube of Thin Mints, I'm going to eat the whole thing. In fact, I'll probably eat the entire box in one sitting without batting an eye. For me, the best course of action is not to have them around at all. If I start playing with fire - buying the box of cookies, opening the box of cookies, opening the tube of cookies, taking out a couple of cookies, eating and savoring a couple of cookies - it is far to easy to just eat "just one more" and before you know it you've eaten the whole box.

This is great. Identify the problem. Crush it.

Most of us react to diets like spoiled children. We've been indulged - No, over-indulged. We are used to getting our way. We want what we want and we want it now. "No?! Don't tell me no! I WANT IT!!! I NEED it!! I MUST HAVE IT!!!"

Like spoiled children, we have fits over it when disciple suddenly enters into the equation.

Also like spoiled children, we get used to not ever having our way and learn to live happily in a disciplined manner.

Once we have our spoiled behavior under control, we might be able to be indulged on rare occasions without turning into monsters the next time we don't get our way.

Eventually, we can be treated to things and not even consider that it should be an all-the-time thing, just be happy for the treat.

FatFreeFrolicking

Avoid the foods you cannot eat in moderation all together.

If you can't do that, seek professional help from a therapist who specializes in eating disorders.

lemurcat12

The post was not an attack against what works for you! It's a plea for solutions other than moderation.

It really wasn't. I think people on both sides of the usual moderation debate are just reading that into it.

She said she can't do moderation and she can't quit entirely because her parents buy stuff she overeats and she'd order it anyway if they didn't. (Nothing about sugar.)

It's an "I can't help it" post.

Now, if you are in a situation where tempting food is always going to be around (sweets are in my office constantly, for example, some of which aren't tempting at all, but some are--my secretary has a bakery on the side with some family members and likes to try out stuff on us), IMO there's really no choice but figuring out how to deal with food that's all around. In fact, I suspect this is the situation for the vast majority of people, due to workplaces or other family members or social events, etc. That's why this debate about "moderation" (which hasn't even really been defined) is beside the point.

I also don't know (again) why not cutting out sugar is supposed to mean that you eat lots and lots of "highly processed" stuff or HFCS, but whatever.

Sabine_Stroehm

The post was not an attack against what works for you! It's a plea for solutions other than moderation.

It really wasn't. I think people on both sides of the usual moderation debate are just reading that into it.

She said she can't do moderation and she can't quit entirely because her parents buy stuff she overeats and she'd order it anyway if they didn't. (Nothing about sugar.)

It's an "I can't help it" post.

Now, if you are in a situation where tempting food is always going to be around (sweets are in my office constantly, for example, some of which aren't tempting at all, but some are--my secretary has a bakery on the side with some family members and likes to try out stuff on us), IMO there's really no choice but figuring out how to deal with food that's all around. In fact, I suspect this is the situation for the vast majority of people, due to workplaces or other family members or social events, etc. That's why this debate about "moderation" (which hasn't even really been defined) is beside the point.

I also don't know (again) why not cutting out sugar is supposed to mean that you eat lots and lots of "highly processed" stuff or HFCS, but whatever.

Smiles. There were FOUR (FOUR!) large tupperware containers with four different kinds of chocolate candies in the kitchen at work today. And bagels on the counter.
And some figs.

lemurcat12

For an addict, generally it is an all-or-nothing approach because the chance of relapse is too high. Thus at alcoholics anonymous they tell you that you are only one drink away from being an alcoholic again.

Okay. So what is the OP addicted to and on what did you base that diagnosis?

The problem with food addiction is that we have no choice but to eat.

Ah, food! Quite a diagnosis based on very little. I do think food addiction is a thing--I think it's at least a reasonable term or related psychological issue to binge eating disorders or the kinds of "food above all" compulsions that lead to people becoming morbidly obese in at least some cases. To toss that term around for people who just have trouble not overeating foods they really like, though, seems irresponsible.

Especially since the OP hasn't suggested such a thing at all. She's indicated there are specific foods that she has trouble with. Calling that a food addiction is rather like someone claiming she has a "beer addiction"--no, maybe even a "Guinness addiction." But that's not a thing.

lindsey1979

Thank you. I'd really appreciate that. I think there is a lot more research out there to be done and I'm sure I haven't read it all.

Here is one that I came across a while ago from Princeton that I thought presented some interesting findings in rats -- that those that ate a diet with HFCS gained considerable more weight than those that ate the same calories of sucrose, and the level of HFCS was about half of what you see in regular soda. Part of the talk is the extra metabolic step that has to be done with sucrose than HFCS -- the fructose in HFCS is free/unbound unlike the fructose in sucrose. There are other interesting findings, but at the very least it seems to indicate that not all calories are equal and there seems to be something specifically different about HFCS.

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/

Also, from the article and apropos to our earlier detox discussion:

"The new research complements previous work led by Hoebel and Avena demonstrating that sucrose can be addictive, having effects on the brain similar to some drugs of abuse."

This is a Forbes article but it provides a good overview and links to the actual studies. It's worth a read.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/trevorbutterworth/2014/02/06/sweet-and-sour-the-media-decided-fructose-was-bad-for-america-but-science-had-second-thoughts/

I actually have read some of those. I don't find the population comparison studies that helpful personally because there are just so many factors at play -- portion size, other dietary components, etc. I find such studies to not be that persuasive except as an "hmmmm...that's interesting, perhaps we need to look into it more." And a lot of it was criticism of the Princeton study -- some valid, some not in my opinion. Though I do agree with a lot of the comments about how the media distorts things.

Here is also some comments from the Princeton study's author that addresses many of the criticisms, which I found more persuasive personally: http://grist.org/article/interview-with-princeton-hfcs-researcher-dr-bart-hoebel/

I'm more interested in the differences at the molecular level and how that interacts with the body. I think the difference between free fructose in HFCS as opposed to the bound versions in sucrose interesting, though ultimately I'm interested in the effects it actually has on the body.

I think the rat studies are troubling, personally, and seem to indicate that there is some difference. The fact that rats exposed to 10% sucrose moderated their rat chow consumption and didn't gain weight (in a previous study but referenced in the current study) versus those that had access to the HFCS solution didn't moderate their consumption and gained significant weight. That to me says that there is something different about HFCS -- whether it's just how it's broken down in the body, increases appetite, etc. -- but something appears to be up.

I'd love to see that sort of study on humans, but I don't think that will ever happen for a variety of reasons. But I'd definitely like to see more of these sorts of studies.

lindsey1979

I also don't know (again) why not cutting out sugar is supposed to mean that you eat lots and lots of "highly processed" stuff or HFCS, but whatever.

I guess it depends on the person and context in which it comes up. I think for me, when I see it, I usually think it refers to added sugar. A lot of foods with added sugar are of the highly processed variety, including HFCS. So if you're eating a lot of added sugar, you're probably eating a lot of highly processed foods (you don't tend to see people just eating spoonfuls of sugar as a general rule). If you're not eating a lot of added sugar, then you probably aren't eating a lot of highly processed foods.

Of course, there are other issues with highly processed foods than just added sugar, but that's the only part that's apropos to the sugar discussion.

SunofaBeach14

Thank you. I'd really appreciate that. I think there is a lot more research out there to be done and I'm sure I haven't read it all.

Here is one that I came across a while ago from Princeton that I thought presented some interesting findings in rats -- that those that ate a diet with HFCS gained considerable more weight than those that ate the same calories of sucrose, and the level of HFCS was about half of what you see in regular soda. Part of the talk is the extra metabolic step that has to be done with sucrose than HFCS -- the fructose in HFCS is free/unbound unlike the fructose in sucrose. There are other interesting findings, but at the very least it seems to indicate that not all calories are equal and there seems to be something specifically different about HFCS.

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/

Also, from the article and apropos to our earlier detox discussion:

"The new research complements previous work led by Hoebel and Avena demonstrating that sucrose can be addictive, having effects on the brain similar to some drugs of abuse."

This is a Forbes article but it provides a good overview and links to the actual studies. It's worth a read.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/trevorbutterworth/2014/02/06/sweet-and-sour-the-media-decided-fructose-was-bad-for-america-but-science-had-second-thoughts/

I actually have read some of those. I don't find the population comparison studies that helpful personally because there are just so many factors at play -- portion size, other dietary components, etc. I find such studies to not be that persuasive except as an "hmmmm...that's interesting, perhaps we need to look into it more." And a lot of it was criticism of the Princeton study -- some valid, some not in my opinion. Though I do agree with a lot of the comments about how the media distorts things.

Here is also some comments from the Princeton study's author that addresses many of the criticisms, which I found more persuasive personally: http://grist.org/article/interview-with-princeton-hfcs-researcher-dr-bart-hoebel/

I'm more interested in the differences at the molecular level and how that interacts with the body. I think the difference between free fructose in HFCS as opposed to the bound versions in sucrose interesting, though ultimately I'm interested in the effects it actually has on the body. I think the rat studies are troubling, personally, and seem to indicate that there is some difference. I'd love to see that sort of study on humans, but I don't think that will ever happen.

I'm not persuaded by a rat study, particularly when people involved with serious work on body composition, i.e. people involved with bodybuilding are advising otherwise. I like the allusion to a conspiracy at the beginning of the article though. It's a nice touch for Grist.

http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/

Kalikel

I also don't know (again) why not cutting out sugar is supposed to mean that you eat lots and lots of "highly processed" stuff or HFCS, but whatever.

So agree.

Sugar is not always manufactured by big food companies.

God manufactured it first. (Or Mother Nature or whatever you believe put the strawberries on the planet.)

Kalikel

I also don't know (again) why not cutting out sugar is supposed to mean that you eat lots and lots of "highly processed" stuff or HFCS, but whatever.

I guess it depends on the person and context in which it comes up. I think for me, when I see it, I usually think it refers to added sugar. A lot of foods with added sugar are of the highly processed variety, including HFCS. So if you're eating a lot of added sugar, you're probably eating a lot of highly processed foods (you don't tend to see people just eating spoonfuls of sugar as a general rule). If you're not eating a lot of added sugar, then you probably aren't eating a lot of highly processed foods.

Of course, there are other issues with highly processed foods than just added sugar, but that's the only part that's apropos to the sugar discussion.

The first day I began tracking sugar, I nearly reached my limit with breakfast. Most of that was grapes, raisins and strawberries. I stopped tracking it very quickly, lol.

There are so many places to get sugar!

I'm not philosophically opposed to corn syrup. No dog in that fight! Just...sugar comes from healthy, fresh food, too.

lindsey1979

I'm not persuaded by a rat study, particularly when people involved with serious work on body composition, i.e. people involved with bodybuilding are advising otherwise. I like the allusion to a conspiracy at the beginning of the article though. It's a nice touch for Grist.

http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/

I'm not anti-fructose necessarily, but I'd definitely like to know more about how it interacts with the body and the different forms it comes in: that arising naturally in fruit, free fructose, that found in sucrose, that found in HFCS, etc. I'm personally pretty comfortable with it arising in fruit, but much more cautious of it in HFCS and the products that contain it. But, usually there are other negative attributes to those products than just HFCS.

This guy doesn't seem to understand the difference between bound and unbound fructose as seen in HFCS and sucrose -- he just deems them nearly identical. Many isomers are "nearly" identical but have profoundly different impacts in the body -- some isomers are even poisons of completely inert versions of another isomer. I'd be cautious following a person's advice about such things who seems to have such a blatant lack of understanding of chemical structure.

He's basically attacking Lustig's whole anti-fructose stance. I don't wholly agree with Lustig and think he overreaches in certain areas. But swinging the exact opposite way like this guy does seems to be an equally grievous error.

lindsey1979

I also don't know (again) why not cutting out sugar is supposed to mean that you eat lots and lots of "highly processed" stuff or HFCS, but whatever.

I guess it depends on the person and context in which it comes up. I think for me, when I see it, I usually think it refers to added sugar. A lot of foods with added sugar are of the highly processed variety, including HFCS. So if you're eating a lot of added sugar, you're probably eating a lot of highly processed foods (you don't tend to see people just eating spoonfuls of sugar as a general rule). If you're not eating a lot of added sugar, then you probably aren't eating a lot of highly processed foods.

Of course, there are other issues with highly processed foods than just added sugar, but that's the only part that's apropos to the sugar discussion.

The first day I began tracking sugar, I nearly reached my limit with breakfast. Most of that was grapes, raisins and strawberries. I stopped tracking it very quickly, lol.

There are so many places to get sugar!

I'm not philosophically opposed to corn syrup. No dog in that fight! Just...sugar comes from healthy, fresh food, too.

Oh, absolutely. Fruit is great, don't get me wrong, but you can overconsume that too (and face the consequences in the bathroom). That's why I think the most reasonable stance when these discussions arise to look at it from an added sugar perspective.

SunofaBeach14

I'm not persuaded by a rat study, particularly when people involved with serious work on body composition, i.e. people involved with bodybuilding are advising otherwise. I like the allusion to a conspiracy at the beginning of the article though. It's a nice touch for Grist.

http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/

I'm not anti-fructose necessarily, but I'd definitely like to know more about how it interacts with the body and the different forms it comes in: that arising naturally in fruit, free fructose, that found in sucrose, that found in HFCS, etc.

This guy doesn't seem to understand the difference between bound and unbound fructose as seen in HFCS and sucrose -- he just deems them nearly identical. Many isomers are "nearly" identical but have profoundly different impacts in the body -- some isomers are even poisons of completely inert versions of another isomer. I'd be cautious following a person's advice about such things who seems to have such a blatant lack of understanding of chemical structure.

He's basically attacking Lustig's whole anti-fructose stance. I don't wholly agree with Lustig and think he overreaches in certain areas. But swinging the exact opposite way like this guy does seems to be an equally grievous error.

You should probably read a bit slower, but in any event, best of luck to you and your goals.

lilly57573

A couple years ago i stopped eating junk food for health reasons,it sounds hard but once you get in to it- it's pretty easy.
I would suggest you go 'cold turkey' at first and keep at it for a month or two,after that you can start figuring out what you can moderate.
From my experience you will feel much better without certain foods so you won't even want to eat half of what you're eating now. I'm not even tempted to drink sodas,eat pizza or other fatty pastries since i feel my body is doing so much better without them.
A few tips:
Make sure you have healthy food around,if you don't you WILL eat whatever is in the kitchen.
If you have the slightest talent-start cooking. It doesn't have to be fancy,just simple stuff. You can find endless amounts of healthy recipes online.
Try to find a healthy take out in your area,when you want to order pizza call them instead.
Try to find healthier versions of the foods you like.
Smoothies- make sure to have fruits you like and add some chocolate. Saved me every time.
I don't believe in anything extreme,i think if you want to keep it up for a long period of time you should eat something you like every now and then. My weakness is cake,i found healthy recipes for cake and i bake once a week,but every once in a while i will have the real thing,it keeps me going:)

lindsey1979

I'm not persuaded by a rat study, particularly when people involved with serious work on body composition, i.e. people involved with bodybuilding are advising otherwise. I like the allusion to a conspiracy at the beginning of the article though. It's a nice touch for Grist.

http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/

I'm not anti-fructose necessarily, but I'd definitely like to know more about how it interacts with the body and the different forms it comes in: that arising naturally in fruit, free fructose, that found in sucrose, that found in HFCS, etc.

This guy doesn't seem to understand the difference between bound and unbound fructose as seen in HFCS and sucrose -- he just deems them nearly identical. Many isomers are "nearly" identical but have profoundly different impacts in the body -- some isomers are even poisons of completely inert versions of another isomer. I'd be cautious following a person's advice about such things who seems to have such a blatant lack of understanding of chemical structure.

He's basically attacking Lustig's whole anti-fructose stance. I don't wholly agree with Lustig and think he overreaches in certain areas. But swinging the exact opposite way like this guy does seems to be an equally grievous error.

You should probably read a bit slower, but in any event, best of luck to you and your goals.

Perhaps you could help me. I saw this:

"Sucrose is half fructose and half glucose. High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is nearly identical to sucrose in structure and function."

He makes no mention of the difference in bound and unbound fructose in HFCS vs. sucrose and declares them "nearly identical in structure and function". Certain types of isomers are mirror images of one another and can have vastly different metabolic effects. Fructose in is unbound in HFCS and bound in sucrose -- it takes an extra metabolic step in sucrose to uncouple the fructose from glucose. Whether that is the cause (or even if a causal connection exists) between that and differences in obesity is still up for debate. But the Princetown study showed that happened at least in rats. I'll take that any day over a guy that declares unbound and bound versions to be "nearly identical in structure and function".

And then he discusses other interesting things about fructose, like the difference between fructose and glucose pre-loading, but doesn't really pertain to the whole HFCS version of fructose-glucose at all. Interesting, but not all that relevant.

Either way, as I said before, there certainly is room for debate on the subject and studies on both sides of the fend. Personally, I find the foods with a lot of HFCS usually have other issue that are negative about them so give me other reasons to make different food choices that I believer are healthier. And I agree with one of his conclusions: "The big picture solution is in managing total caloric balance with a predominance of minimally refined foods and sufficient physical activity."

SunofaBeach14

I'm not persuaded by a rat study, particularly when people involved with serious work on body composition, i.e. people involved with bodybuilding are advising otherwise. I like the allusion to a conspiracy at the beginning of the article though. It's a nice touch for Grist.

http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/

I'm not anti-fructose necessarily, but I'd definitely like to know more about how it interacts with the body and the different forms it comes in: that arising naturally in fruit, free fructose, that found in sucrose, that found in HFCS, etc.

This guy doesn't seem to understand the difference between bound and unbound fructose as seen in HFCS and sucrose -- he just deems them nearly identical. Many isomers are "nearly" identical but have profoundly different impacts in the body -- some isomers are even poisons of completely inert versions of another isomer. I'd be cautious following a person's advice about such things who seems to have such a blatant lack of understanding of chemical structure.

He's basically attacking Lustig's whole anti-fructose stance. I don't wholly agree with Lustig and think he overreaches in certain areas. But swinging the exact opposite way like this guy does seems to be an equally grievous error.

You should probably read a bit slower, but in any event, best of luck to you and your goals.

Perhaps you could help me. I saw this:

"Sucrose is half fructose and half glucose. High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is nearly identical to sucrose in structure and function."

He makes no mention of the difference in bound and unbound fructose in HFCS vs. sucrose and declares them "nearly identical in structure and function". Certain types of isomers are mirror images of one another and can have vastly different metabolic effects. Fructose in is unbound in HFCS and bound in sucrose -- it takes an extra metabolic step in sucrose to uncouple the fructose from glucose. Whether that is the cause (or even if a causal connection exists) between that and differences in obesity is still up for debate. But the Princetown study showed that happened at least in rats. I'll take that any day over a guy that declares unbound and bound versions to be "nearly identical in structure and function".

And then he discusses other interesting things about fructose, like the difference between fructose and glucose pre-loading, but doesn't really pertain to the whole HFCS version of fructose-glucose at all. Interesting, but not all that relevant.

Either way, as I said before, there certainly is room for debate on the subject and studies on both sides of the fend. Personally, I find the foods with a lot of HFCS usually have other issue that are negative about them so give me other reasons to make different food choices that I believer are healthier. And I agree with one of his conclusions: "The big picture solution is in managing total caloric balance with a predominance of minimally refined foods and sufficient physical activity."

The question is whether that difference makes a difference in humans at levels actually consumed. As you said yourself, there is no such study. Even looking at your study, the statistically significant difference in rats doesn't mean much unless it will cause enough fat gain to matter, i.e. if someone just wants to get down to healthy body weight, then even assuming the rat study is applicable to humans, then they would have to be at the final cutting stage for a competition for this to matter, if it matters at all. That simply isn't applicable to most of us.

And yes, that bolded part above is an important point. It goes back to what I was saying about how much sugar I consume. I eat very little and that's the point. A little isn't going to make much of a difference.

lemurcat12

So if you're eating a lot of added sugar, you're probably eating a lot of highly processed foods (you don't tend to see people just eating spoonfuls of sugar as a general rule).

Well, I wouldn't assume that anyone who eats sugar "in moderation" eats "lots" of added sugar, necessarily. The debates around here seem to focus on no added sugar vs. moderation, after all.

And of course people don't eat spoonfuls of sugar (well, some put it in oatmeal or a hot beverage, I suppose), but a common way to eat sugar is, presumably, to bake things, yes?

Hearts_2015

bump