help! addicted to sugar
Replies
-
Addicted to Sugar = Lack of Will-Power and dedication.0 -
I believe i'm seriously addicted, and that if not for this addiction I wouldn't be as overweight as I am. Any suggestions on how I can start phasing out the amount of candy & sugar I eat? Maybe some healthy alternatives that can satisfy my cravings :sick:
Maybe the first step should be, stop trying to blame "sugar addiction" if there is even such a thing and take responsibility for your weight issues
That's an incredibly offensive and ignorant stance to take.
I work in substance abuse, so I've spent a ridiculous amount of time reading and researching addiction. Some people are more prone to addiction than others. Sugar is as addictive, if not more than cocaine. http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/researcher-sugar-addictive-cocaine-obesity-diabetes-cancer-heart-disease-article-1.1054419
OK, IF I only could manage to quote something AND write something as well, i'll be on my way LOL
JUST wanted to say that after years of self-abuse with food/candy/ice cream etc. to stuff down emotional pain I've often found myself comparing sugar to a drug and considered myself addicted to food because 1) I felt I couldn't live without it, 2) couldn't resist the temptation, 3) found out I couldn't do things in moderation so quit sugar cold-turkey, and 4) went through withdrawal-like symptoms, so 5) went back on it, because 6) had not learned to deal with my emotional pain, which 7) continued this vicious cycle of self-abuse with food - especially high carb foods (sugar). The problem is that people don't NEED drugs to live, but people need food to live... I hadn't learned to make better food choices.
So, yes I believe there is such a thing as sugar addiction, and yes I also believe that we do tell ourselves that we can't live without it as a means to avoid doing the more difficult work of choosing another method of dealing with our problems... at least, that was the case with me.
What works for me is eating apples when I crave sugary stuff, or creamy Greek yogurt when I think I want ice cream, or a square of very dark chocolate when I want something chocolaty... what works the best though is to decide once and for all that I don't want that stuff controlling me anymore... easier said than done, I know!0 -
Wow, way too much for my ADD to wade through here, but I also can live on sugar!! add me if you would like, maybe we can help each other.0
-
i found when i started eating a variety of 5 or 6 kinds of fruits every day my craving for bad sugars went away.
a big plateful of different berries and gala apples, kiwi, fresh pineapple etc made me look with confusion why i ever settled for the garbage i ate before0 -
Knowledge helps please watch this and I think you will thing differently about sugar.
Sugar the bitter truth:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM 0 -
he has been disproven and he is madKnowledge helps please watch this and I think you will thing differently about sugar.
Sugar the bitter truth:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM0 -
Knowledge helps please watch this and I think you will thing differently about sugar.
Sugar the bitter truth:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
And if you'd like to see why that video is basically alarmism:
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/0 -
I used to be very addicted to sugar as well!
I used to eat BAGS of gummies and sometimes my cravings would be so intense that I would eat chunks of brown sugar, or 5 spoonfuls of white sugar PLAIN. I had this constant fear of getting really early diabetes.
I took some steps to slowly cut out the food that was causing me problems.
First I stopped drinking all soda,
When I got used to that I stopped drinking any sweetened beverages at all,
Later I cut out white flour which meant no more donuts or pastries or cakes.
Then I decided to stop eating any candy besides chocolate, which meant no more gummies.
Now recently I have stopped eating anything with white or brown sugar in it (even a small amount, like in many breads).
It was a slow process but I feel like I have successfully weaned myself and no longer have these cravings. I tend to eat a lot of fruit now
0 -
That was sheer educated article based off other studies 3 years ago.Knowledge helps please watch this and I think you will thing differently about sugar.
Sugar the bitter truth:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
And if you'd like to see why that video is basically alarmism:
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/
There have been recent studies that shows that Alan was right. LOL0 -
post your proof or stfuAnyone can see you're an intelligent person by the way you write. You're aware of this addiction you have and as cliched as it sounds, that really is the first step. I strongly recommend you get some help, whether it is seeing a doctor, psychologist, or even attending a meeting in your area like the previous poster suggested. The feelings of guilt and shame associated with addiction are tremendous and they make it hard to think straight, which is why some people have what is called a "moment of clarity." However you can choose at any time to take steps towards a brighter future. I think you've probably tried stopping cold turkey before and it didn't work. That doesn't mean anything about you, it just means that idea didn't work. Accept that you'll eat sugar today, tomorrow, and the next day. But over time, if you take positive steps you can reduce it until it was just a dim memory in your past. Take care
Thank you so much, and your very insightful. I'm a student and still live at home with my family so they have an idea of how reckless my sugar consumption has become. Although we've worked together to change what we keep in our cabinets, to stop buying sugar completely wouldn't be fair to the other three people in the house. Yes I have tried to stop on my own a million times, and yes my parents actually wanted me to speak to someone about it a couple years ago but I totally dismissed it because I thought that would be unnecessary and ridiculous. Now it doesn't seem as ridiculous, but I want to try and defeat this on my own first. So, i'm going to definitely start with your suggestion of meeting with a doctor
Regardless of some of the opinions given on this subject, sugar addiction is real and has been proven as such and it should be treated like any other addiction. Seek the help of someone that understand addiction and is able to treat it. Good luck.
I already have and I just reported you0 -
he has been disproven and he is madKnowledge helps please watch this and I think you will thing differently about sugar.
Sugar the bitter truth:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
Where is the proof that "he has been disproven and he is mad?" Just because you don't agree doesn't mean it isn't true or that he's "mad."0 -
Addicted to Sugar = Lack of Will-Power and dedication.
Ignorance is a state of being uninformed (lack of knowledge).[1] The word ignorant is an adjective describing a person in the state of being unaware and is often used as an insult to describe individuals who deliberately ignore or disregard important information or facts. Ignoramus is commonly used in the US, the UK, and Ireland as a term for someone who is willfully ignorant.
Ignorance is distinguished from stupidity, although both can lead to "unwise" acts.0 -
Addicted to Sugar = Lack of Will-Power and dedication.
Ignorance is a state of being uninformed (lack of knowledge).[1] The word ignorant is an adjective describing a person in the state of being unaware and is often used as an insult to describe individuals who deliberately ignore or disregard important information or facts. Ignoramus is commonly used in the US, the UK, and Ireland as a term for someone who is willfully ignorant.
Ignorance is distinguished from stupidity, although both can lead to "unwise" acts.
:flowerforyou:0 -
By fearmongering?
Fear mongering (or scaremongering or scare tactics) is the use of fear to influence the opinions and actions of others towards some specific end. The feared object or subject is sometimes exaggerated, and the pattern of fear mongering is usually one of repetition, in order to continuously reinforce the intended effects of this tactic, sometimes in the form of a vicious circle.
There is no specific end other than sharing knowledge
There is no fear of the subject, so that isn't exaggerated.
No repetition, an article was posted and left at that.
How is explaining how something works and validating someone's experience threaten or frighten you so that you need to insult and lash out so viciously?
Someone else having a (posible) addiction to sugar doesn't impact you.
The fact that there is a chemical process that causes addiction doesn't impact you.
The fact that things are addictive doesn't impact you.
If something is observed in mice it doesn't impact you.
noun
the action of deliberately arousing public fear or alarm about a particular issue
http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/fearmongering
By stating sugar is as addictive if not more than cocaine while leaving out the crucial detail that that finding was found in a study involving rats not humans, is fearmongering.0 -
By fearmongering?
Fear mongering (or scaremongering or scare tactics) is the use of fear to influence the opinions and actions of others towards some specific end. The feared object or subject is sometimes exaggerated, and the pattern of fear mongering is usually one of repetition, in order to continuously reinforce the intended effects of this tactic, sometimes in the form of a vicious circle.
There is no specific end other than sharing knowledge
There is no fear of the subject, so that isn't exaggerated.
No repetition, an article was posted and left at that.
How is explaining how something works and validating someone's experience threaten or frighten you so that you need to insult and lash out so viciously?
Someone else having a (posible) addiction to sugar doesn't impact you.
The fact that there is a chemical process that causes addiction doesn't impact you.
The fact that things are addictive doesn't impact you.
If something is observed in mice it doesn't impact you.
noun
the action of deliberately arousing public fear or alarm about a particular issue
http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/fearmongering
By stating sugar is as addictive if not more than cocaine while leaving out the crucial detail that that finding was found in a study involving rats not humans, is fearmongering.
where is your proof to back up that it's not?0 -
Men who have never been leptin-resistant (these men have obviously never been leptin-resistant) would not understand how easily women slip into it. Women have 2 to 3 times the level of circulating leptin in their blood AT THE SAME BODY FAT LEVEL as men. It is NOT an "excuse" to say that nature has apparently intended that women be plump and that men would be muscular and lean. In the ancient past women needed extra body fat to take them (and the babies they carried) through times of food scarcity. The reason why sugar and starch (while it was great for fueling men in their hunt for mastodons) are problematic for women is that the female hormone, estrogen, boosts her blood sugar anyway. She does not need the extra boost of eating "fast" carbohydrates like sugar and starch. Eating "fast" carbohydrates forces her body to create fat in order to protect her from diabetic coma. The further problem of leptin-resistance means that her satiety response is missing. Virtually all obese females have leptin-resistance. And yo-yo dieting merely makes the problem worse and assures regain. Women MUST cut out "fast" carbs in favor of high protein, high fat and lower carbohydrate diets unless they want to spend 2 to 3 hours a day at the gym (and what woman has the time for that?). There are a few fortunate women who, because of their naturally slender/muscular build, do not seem to have to worry about body fat. But they are a tiny percentage of women. It is not helpful when men who do not have the problems women face come here to harass women who are trying to figure out the way to nourish their bodies and lose body fat in a healthful way. Those of you men who are in that category, please stop.0
-
By fearmongering?
Fear mongering (or scaremongering or scare tactics) is the use of fear to influence the opinions and actions of others towards some specific end. The feared object or subject is sometimes exaggerated, and the pattern of fear mongering is usually one of repetition, in order to continuously reinforce the intended effects of this tactic, sometimes in the form of a vicious circle.
There is no specific end other than sharing knowledge
There is no fear of the subject, so that isn't exaggerated.
No repetition, an article was posted and left at that.
How is explaining how something works and validating someone's experience threaten or frighten you so that you need to insult and lash out so viciously?
Someone else having a (posible) addiction to sugar doesn't impact you.
The fact that there is a chemical process that causes addiction doesn't impact you.
The fact that things are addictive doesn't impact you.
If something is observed in mice it doesn't impact you.
noun
the action of deliberately arousing public fear or alarm about a particular issue
http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/fearmongering
By stating sugar is as addictive if not more than cocaine while leaving out the crucial detail that that finding was found in a study involving rats not humans, is fearmongering.
where is your proof to back up that it's not?
The burden of proof is on the claim maker. Also are you familiar with ad ignorantiam?0 -
Men who have never been leptin-resistant (these men have obviously never been leptin-resistant) would not understand how easily women slip into it. Women have 2 to 3 times the level of circulating leptin in their blood AT THE SAME BODY FAT LEVEL as men. It is NOT an "excuse" to say that nature has apparently intended that women be plump and that men would be muscular and lean. In the ancient past women needed extra body fat to take them (and the babies they carried) through times of food scarcity. The reason why sugar and starch (while it was great for fueling men in their hunt for mastodons) are problematic for women is that the female hormone, estrogen, boosts her blood sugar anyway. She does not need the extra boost of eating "fast" carbohydrates like sugar and starch. Eating "fast" carbohydrates forces her body to create fat in order to protect her from diabetic coma. The further problem of leptin-resistance means that her satiety response is missing. Virtually all obese females have leptin-resistance. And yo-yo dieting merely makes the problem worse and assures regain. Women MUST cut out "fast" carbs in favor of high protein, high fat and lower carbohydrate diets unless they want to spend 2 to 3 hours a day at the gym (and what woman has the time for that?). There are a few fortunate women who, because of their naturally slender/muscular build, do not seem to have to worry about body fat. But they are a tiny percentage of women. It is not helpful when men who do not have the problems women face come here to harass women who are trying to figure out the way to nourish their bodies and lose body fat in a healthful way. Those of you men who are in that category, please stop.
Lol
"Eating "fast" carbohydrates forces her body to create fat in order to protect her from diabetic coma."
In what amounts of "fast carbs, does this happen?
" Women MUST cut out "fast" carbs in favor of high protein, high fat and lower carbohydrate diets unless they want to spend 2 to 3 hours a day at the gym (and what woman has the time for that?)."
LMAO, I wonder if there are any women who have been overweight but lost weight on a non low carb diet without 2-3 hrs in the gym0 -
I have never seen you be nice on here not once it actually is a proven fact you can be addicted to sugar how about you get to know some facts before you go running your mouth eh? to the OP I hear you been there still there what helps for me is to eat more meals through out the day that have things like apples, and I started chewing some gum. Its a battle and not having those things in the house really helpsI believe i'm seriously addicted, and that if not for this addiction I wouldn't be as overweight as I am. Any suggestions on how I can start phasing out the amount of candy & sugar I eat? Maybe some healthy alternatives that can satisfy my cravings :sick:
Maybe the first step should be, stop trying to blame "sugar addiction" if there is even such a thing and take responsibility for your weight issues
Some people try to help. Some people just like to cause problems... And spend a lot of their time doing so.
I've found that when people have a problem with how other people are living their life, it is a reflection on them more than the person they are trying to put down.
Exactly! You nailed him! :flowerforyou:
your totally right that's why I put him on ignore he just wants attention lol
I didn't know we could ignore people until you said that! Yes, I found the ignore option and chose to do so too. I have chosen not to argue because there is no use arguing with someone because their heads are so far up another orifice of their body that they cannot hear you. But just glad to know that option is there to ignore Debbie Downers!0 -
By fearmongering?
Fear mongering (or scaremongering or scare tactics) is the use of fear to influence the opinions and actions of others towards some specific end. The feared object or subject is sometimes exaggerated, and the pattern of fear mongering is usually one of repetition, in order to continuously reinforce the intended effects of this tactic, sometimes in the form of a vicious circle.
There is no specific end other than sharing knowledge
There is no fear of the subject, so that isn't exaggerated.
No repetition, an article was posted and left at that.
How is explaining how something works and validating someone's experience threaten or frighten you so that you need to insult and lash out so viciously?
Someone else having a (posible) addiction to sugar doesn't impact you.
The fact that there is a chemical process that causes addiction doesn't impact you.
The fact that things are addictive doesn't impact you.
If something is observed in mice it doesn't impact you.
noun
the action of deliberately arousing public fear or alarm about a particular issue
http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/fearmongering
By stating sugar is as addictive if not more than cocaine while leaving out the crucial detail that that finding was found in a study involving rats not humans, is fearmongering.
Actually, the majority of studies start with animal testing; it's a requirement of the FDA, "They must show the FDA results of preclinical testing in laboratory animals and what they propose to do for human testing". So your issue with the study is that it hasn't progressed to humans YET?
Source: http://www.fda.gov/drugs/resourcesforyou/consumers/ucm143534.htm0 -
By fearmongering?
Fear mongering (or scaremongering or scare tactics) is the use of fear to influence the opinions and actions of others towards some specific end. The feared object or subject is sometimes exaggerated, and the pattern of fear mongering is usually one of repetition, in order to continuously reinforce the intended effects of this tactic, sometimes in the form of a vicious circle.
There is no specific end other than sharing knowledge
There is no fear of the subject, so that isn't exaggerated.
No repetition, an article was posted and left at that.
How is explaining how something works and validating someone's experience threaten or frighten you so that you need to insult and lash out so viciously?
Someone else having a (posible) addiction to sugar doesn't impact you.
The fact that there is a chemical process that causes addiction doesn't impact you.
The fact that things are addictive doesn't impact you.
If something is observed in mice it doesn't impact you.
noun
the action of deliberately arousing public fear or alarm about a particular issue
http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/fearmongering
By stating sugar is as addictive if not more than cocaine while leaving out the crucial detail that that finding was found in a study involving rats not humans, is fearmongering.
where is your proof to back up that it's not?
The burden of proof is on the claim maker. Also are you familiar with ad ignorantiam?
you keep stating your opinion whenever you are presented with proof.....so just curious as to your proof........just as I thought, you don't have any....just YOUR opinion. Nice try though0 -
"...I wonder if there are any women who have been overweight but lost weight on a non low carb diet without 2-3 hrs in the gym."
Calorie restriction alone will cause weight loss but the other bio-chemical problems are not addressed through calorie-restriction alone. If proper nutrition is not a part of the scene, she will regain. That is why 97% (IIRC) of obese people (and I suspect it is even a higher proportion of obese women) regain all of the weight (plus more) that they lost, within a short period of time, after a standard low-fat/calorie-restricted diet has ended. Unless she is obsessively vigilant, she will regain while eating sugar and starch. Many women have figured this out for themselves. I have not regained an ounce in three years. And my experience was yo-yo weight-gain/weight-loss for many years before that. What you are saying is destructive.
ETA: I must leave for my swim session. I will return to the discussion later today.0 -
By fearmongering?
Fear mongering (or scaremongering or scare tactics) is the use of fear to influence the opinions and actions of others towards some specific end. The feared object or subject is sometimes exaggerated, and the pattern of fear mongering is usually one of repetition, in order to continuously reinforce the intended effects of this tactic, sometimes in the form of a vicious circle.
There is no specific end other than sharing knowledge
There is no fear of the subject, so that isn't exaggerated.
No repetition, an article was posted and left at that.
How is explaining how something works and validating someone's experience threaten or frighten you so that you need to insult and lash out so viciously?
Someone else having a (posible) addiction to sugar doesn't impact you.
The fact that there is a chemical process that causes addiction doesn't impact you.
The fact that things are addictive doesn't impact you.
If something is observed in mice it doesn't impact you.
noun
the action of deliberately arousing public fear or alarm about a particular issue
http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/fearmongering
By stating sugar is as addictive if not more than cocaine while leaving out the crucial detail that that finding was found in a study involving rats not humans, is fearmongering.
Actually, the majority of studies start with animal testing; it's a requirement of the FDA, "They must show the FDA results of preclinical testing in laboratory animals and what they propose to do for human testing". So your issue with the study is that it hasn't progressed to humans YET?
Source: http://www.fda.gov/drugs/resourcesforyou/consumers/ucm143534.htm
I'm aware of that and already brought up that point to you, when I asked does everything that is found in animal studies applies to humans or for example any drug that is found to work in rats, can we just send it in to production, since if it works in rats it must be the same for humans?0 -
By fearmongering?
Fear mongering (or scaremongering or scare tactics) is the use of fear to influence the opinions and actions of others towards some specific end. The feared object or subject is sometimes exaggerated, and the pattern of fear mongering is usually one of repetition, in order to continuously reinforce the intended effects of this tactic, sometimes in the form of a vicious circle.
There is no specific end other than sharing knowledge
There is no fear of the subject, so that isn't exaggerated.
No repetition, an article was posted and left at that.
How is explaining how something works and validating someone's experience threaten or frighten you so that you need to insult and lash out so viciously?
Someone else having a (posible) addiction to sugar doesn't impact you.
The fact that there is a chemical process that causes addiction doesn't impact you.
The fact that things are addictive doesn't impact you.
If something is observed in mice it doesn't impact you.
noun
the action of deliberately arousing public fear or alarm about a particular issue
http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/fearmongering
By stating sugar is as addictive if not more than cocaine while leaving out the crucial detail that that finding was found in a study involving rats not humans, is fearmongering.
where is your proof to back up that it's not?
The burden of proof is on the claim maker. Also are you familiar with ad ignorantiam?
you keep stating your opinion whenever you are presented with proof.....so just curious as to your proof........just as I thought, you don't have any....just YOUR opinion. Nice try though
I've already reposted your "proof" which dealt with fear mongers like Hyman and Lustig and animal studies. You have also stated anecdotal evidence of yourself but please familiarize yourself with argument from anecdote. Nice try though0 -
By fearmongering?
Fear mongering (or scaremongering or scare tactics) is the use of fear to influence the opinions and actions of others towards some specific end. The feared object or subject is sometimes exaggerated, and the pattern of fear mongering is usually one of repetition, in order to continuously reinforce the intended effects of this tactic, sometimes in the form of a vicious circle.
There is no specific end other than sharing knowledge
There is no fear of the subject, so that isn't exaggerated.
No repetition, an article was posted and left at that.
How is explaining how something works and validating someone's experience threaten or frighten you so that you need to insult and lash out so viciously?
Someone else having a (posible) addiction to sugar doesn't impact you.
The fact that there is a chemical process that causes addiction doesn't impact you.
The fact that things are addictive doesn't impact you.
If something is observed in mice it doesn't impact you.
noun
the action of deliberately arousing public fear or alarm about a particular issue
http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/fearmongering
By stating sugar is as addictive if not more than cocaine while leaving out the crucial detail that that finding was found in a study involving rats not humans, is fearmongering.
where is your proof to back up that it's not?
The burden of proof is on the claim maker. Also are you familiar with ad ignorantiam?
you keep stating your opinion whenever you are presented with proof.....so just curious as to your proof........just as I thought, you don't have any....just YOUR opinion. Nice try though
I've already reposted your "proof" which dealt with fear mongers like Hyman and Lustig and animal studies. You have also stated anecdotal evidence of yourself but please familiarize yourself with argument from anecdote. Nice try though
You're claiming "fear mongering," where's your proof? Once again....just YOUR opinion.....you do know what they say about opinions don't you? :laugh: :laugh:0 -
Actually, the majority of studies start with animal testing; it's a requirement of the FDA, "They must show the FDA results of preclinical testing in laboratory animals and what they propose to do for human testing". So your issue with the study is that it hasn't progressed to humans YET?
Source: http://www.fda.gov/drugs/resourcesforyou/consumers/ucm143534.htm
I'm aware of that and already brought up that point to you, when I asked does everything that is found in animal studies applies to humans or for example any drug that is found to work in rats, can we just send it in to production, since if it works in rats it must be the same for humans?
Of course not, that would be ridiculous. As I said on page 3 this study is far from perfect or definitive, just a start to research and a new discusion.That's fine. This is one study (I haven't had much time to look for others, if they exist) so it is by no means definitive. Of course there are flaws, but it may give hope to people who are suffering. Eventually there will be more research that leads the discussion one way or another.0 -
"...I wonder if there are any women who have been overweight but lost weight on a non low carb diet without 2-3 hrs in the gym."
Calorie restriction alone will cause weight loss but the other bio-chemical problems are not addressed through calorie-restriction alone. If proper nutrition is not a part of the scene, she will regain. That is why 97% (IIRC) of obese people (and I suspect it is even a higher proportion of obese women) regain all of the weight (plus more) that they lost, within a short period of time, after a standard low-fat/calorie-restricted diet has ended. Unless she is obsessively vigilant, she will regain while eating sugar and starch. Many women have figured this out for themselves. I have not regained an ounce in three years. And my experience was yo-yo weight-gain/weight-loss for many years before that. What you are saying is destructive.
ETA: I must leave for my swim session. I will return to the discussion later today.
IMO there are two separate issues here. One is weight loss, which is the same for everyone calories in < calories out. No one is immune to it. The second issue is nutrition, which can different for everyone particularily those with medical conditions, allergies, and food intolerances. A normal healthy person can eat whatever they want as long as calories in < calories out. A person with one or more of the problems listed above have to eat in accordance to what's good for their condition but even if they don't they can still lose weight based on calories in < calories out.
Don't get me wrong, I believe everyone can benifit from eating a nutrious healthy whole unprocessed foods. I believe eating healthy is medicine for people with conditions and it's good as preventative measures for normally healthy people. I do think eating healthy for normally healthy people is a personal preferance. Let's not confuse nutrition with weight loss. You don't have to be "healthy" to lose weight. You don't have to have nutrition to lose weight. (ie starving people in 3rd world countries still lose weight.) You only need your calories in to be less then your calories out. IMO being healthy and eating healthy are even two separate issues. Lot's of healthy people eat whatever. A lot of unhealthy people eat healthy. A large part of health is genetic. My suggestion it to find out what works for you and continue on. When you recieve advice in the forums take it or leave it.... RESULTS will vary. Your experiences and results will be different then the advisers.0 -
I have made a commitment to myself to lose weight and eat right, and I have made a lot of drastic changes, but I can't stop my sugar cravings. I love anything "gummy", gummy bears, gummy dolphins, fuzzy peaches... my addiction too sweets has gotten so bad that for the past year, I've taken to adding insane amounts of sugar to juice, enough sugar that I have to eat it out the glass with a spoon
I believe i'm seriously addicted, and that if not for this addiction I wouldn't be as overweight as I am. Any suggestions on how I can start phasing out the amount of candy & sugar I eat? Maybe some healthy alternatives that can satisfy my cravings :sick:
1 - willpower. just say no.
2 - don't buy it or keep it in the house
3 - learn moderation (one treat a day, sensible portion)
4 - seek counseling for your binge issue0 -
"...I wonder if there are any women who have been overweight but lost weight on a non low carb diet without 2-3 hrs in the gym."
Calorie restriction alone will cause weight loss but the other bio-chemical problems are not addressed through calorie-restriction alone. If proper nutrition is not a part of the scene, she will regain. That is why 97% (IIRC) of obese people (and I suspect it is even a higher proportion of obese women) regain all of the weight (plus more) that they lost, within a short period of time, after a standard low-fat/calorie-restricted diet has ended. Unless she is obsessively vigilant, she will regain while eating sugar and starch. Many women have figured this out for themselves. I have not regained an ounce in three years. And my experience was yo-yo weight-gain/weight-loss for many years before that. What you are saying is destructive.
ETA: I must leave for my swim session. I will return to the discussion later today.
IMO there are two separate issues here. One is weight loss, which is the same for everyone calories in < calories out. No one is immune to it. The second issue is nutrition, which can different for everyone particularily those with medical conditions, allergies, and food intolerances. A normal healthy person can eat whatever they want as long as calories in < calories out. A person with one or more of the problems listed above have to eat in accordance to what's good for their condition but even if they don't they can still lose weight based on calories in < calories out.
Don't get me wrong, I believe everyone can benifit from eating a nutrious healthy whole unprocessed foods. I believe eating healthy is medicine for people with conditions and it's good as preventative measures for normally healthy people. I do think eating healthy for normally healthy people is a personal preferance. Let's not confuse nutrition with weight loss. You don't have to be "healthy" to lose weight. You don't have to have nutrition to lose weight. (ie starving people in 3rd world countries still lose weight.) You only need your calories in to be less then your calories out. IMO being healthy and eating healthy are even two separate issues. Lot's of healthy people eat whatever. A lot of unhealthy people eat healthy. A large part of health is genetic. My suggestion it to find out what works for you and continue on. When you recieve advice in the forums take it or leave it.... RESULTS will vary. Your experiences and results will be different then the advisers.
Yes--I understand your point of view. However, what is the point of losing, only to regain? The wider issue that the OP was going for, I think, is her issue of "sugar addiction" (and I'm guessing she is also addicted to simple carbs as well--the two seem to go together). Just as an alcoholic is advised to simply abstain from alcohol, so an obese (30% or more above "ideal" lean weight) sugar/simple carb addict must refrain from them to bring her hormones, leptin, insulin, adiponectin, cortisol, human growth hormone, etc. (all of which have a bearing on adiposity) back to a healthier level. At the same time, she must increase her level of exercise, as that will aid in correcting her hormones, in addition to burning calories and enabling her to eat more nourishing food to "heal" her body of its derangement.0 -
"...I wonder if there are any women who have been overweight but lost weight on a non low carb diet without 2-3 hrs in the gym."
Calorie restriction alone will cause weight loss but the other bio-chemical problems are not addressed through calorie-restriction alone. If proper nutrition is not a part of the scene, she will regain. That is why 97% (IIRC) of obese people (and I suspect it is even a higher proportion of obese women) regain all of the weight (plus more) that they lost, within a short period of time, after a standard low-fat/calorie-restricted diet has ended. Unless she is obsessively vigilant, she will regain while eating sugar and starch. Many women have figured this out for themselves. I have not regained an ounce in three years. And my experience was yo-yo weight-gain/weight-loss for many years before that. What you are saying is destructive.
ETA: I must leave for my swim session. I will return to the discussion later today.
IMO there are two separate issues here. One is weight loss, which is the same for everyone calories in < calories out. No one is immune to it. The second issue is nutrition, which can different for everyone particularily those with medical conditions, allergies, and food intolerances. A normal healthy person can eat whatever they want as long as calories in < calories out. A person with one or more of the problems listed above have to eat in accordance to what's good for their condition but even if they don't they can still lose weight based on calories in < calories out.
Don't get me wrong, I believe everyone can benifit from eating a nutrious healthy whole unprocessed foods. I believe eating healthy is medicine for people with conditions and it's good as preventative measures for normally healthy people. I do think eating healthy for normally healthy people is a personal preferance. Let's not confuse nutrition with weight loss. You don't have to be "healthy" to lose weight. You don't have to have nutrition to lose weight. (ie starving people in 3rd world countries still lose weight.) You only need your calories in to be less then your calories out. IMO being healthy and eating healthy are even two separate issues. Lot's of healthy people eat whatever. A lot of unhealthy people eat healthy. A large part of health is genetic. My suggestion it to find out what works for you and continue on. When you recieve advice in the forums take it or leave it.... RESULTS will vary. Your experiences and results will be different then the advisers.
Yes--I understand your point of view. However, what is the point of losing, only to regain? The wider issue that the OP was going for, I think, is her issue of "sugar addiction" (and I'm guessing she is also addicted to simple carbs as well--the two seem to go together). Just as an alcoholic is advised to simply abstain from alcohol, so an obese (30% or more above "ideal" lean weight) sugar/simple carb addict must refrain from them to bring her hormones, leptin, insulin, adiponectin, cortisol, human growth hormone, etc. (all of which have a bearing on adiposity) back to a healthier level. At the same time, she must increase her level of exercise, as that will aid in correcting her hormones, in addition to burning calories and enabling her to eat more nourishing food to "heal" her body of its derangement.
So unless women go low carb, there is zero chance of them maintaining weight loss, at least without 2-3 hrs of exercise a day, hence you saying women must go low carb? And none of the hormones you listed can be "corrected" without low carb, weight loss in and of itself will do nothing to improve things?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions